It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

13.2 billion year-old galaxy found in 13.8 billion year old universe. :0

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Depending on temperature. Again:Stefan's law
But, stay focused on that microwave oven bit, cause that's really important.
Or is it? What were we talking about? Oh yes, the CMB.

You'll get there eventually.




posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Depending on temperature. Again:Stefan's law
But, stay focused on that microwave oven bit, cause that's really important.
Or is it? What were we talking about? Oh yes, the CMB.

You'll get there eventually.
So you admit your source is wrong about this claim in the example I just provided?


Question (1): When you put a glass of water inside a microwave oven and turn it on does the water in the glass reflect the microwaves or does it absorb them?

Answer: The water absorbs the microwaves. Indeed, foodstuffs too, placed inside the microwave oven, absorb the microwaves. That is how the oven works and why it is called ‘a microwave oven’.

Question (2): Is a powerful absorber of microwaves also a powerful emitter thereof?

Answer: It is very well known that a powerful absorber of microwaves is also a powerful emitter of microwaves.


edit on 2015910 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm thinking you've missed the point entirely.
That's ok.

The point is that water (and other 'foodstuffs' )absorb the microwave energy. They don't reflect it.
Grasp that? Ok. Good.

Now, we know from Stefan's law that if something, say a water molecule, is good at absorbing energy, it is also good at emitting or radiating it.
Got that? Ok. Good.

Now we're in space. You know, that black stuff up above our atmosphere. And water exists in our atmosphere and on the surface. And water takes different forms, like: Ice, vapor, liquid, and there is a lot of it. Now we know that water absorbs energies in the electromagnetic spectrum and we know that in Stefan's law there are coefficients for all of these things, so we can calculate which parts of the EM spectrum and at what intensity it is absorbed and radiated back.

Got that? No? Well, I'm sorry. I guess it's back to remedial science for you.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Smack because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2015 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Smack

So, what is your point?

Here is list of experiments that all point at CMB radiation and they have been observed from ground, balloon and space and still produce the same results?!

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Yeah. I was about to ask the same question.

COBE, WMAP, and Plank were all spacecraft that measured the CMB. The latter two orbited at Lagrangian Point 2.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well, I'm saying that there is one or two people that have a good argument against that idea. They go into a great deal of detail. However, it seems no one cares to look at it. They'd like to dismiss it out of hand rather than explore the possibility.

Attacking the source or the author of the material is just ad hominem. It doesn't constitute an argument.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Smack

So, what is your point?

Here is list of experiments that all point at CMB radiation and they have been observed from ground, balloon and space and still produce the same results?!

en.wikipedia.org...



They are having problems with reproducibility. www.cosmostat.org...
Signal extraction is a very big problem. Extracting a signal 1000x weaker than the galactic foreground is impossible, but they are convinced they can do it somehow.

It's easy to just dismiss an idea because it doesn't fit with the mainstream view. That has been the sad history of science.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well, I'm saying that there is one or two people that have a good argument against that idea. They go into a great deal of detail. However, it seems no one cares to look at it. They'd like to dismiss it out of hand rather than explore the possibility.

Attacking the source or the author of the material is just ad hominem. It doesn't constitute an argument.



originally posted by: Smack

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Smack

So, what is your point?

Here is list of experiments that all point at CMB radiation and they have been observed from ground, balloon and space and still produce the same results?!

en.wikipedia.org...



They are having problems with reproducibility. www.cosmostat.org...
Signal extraction is a very big problem. Extracting a signal 1000x weaker than the galactic foreground is impossible, but they are convinced they can do it somehow.

It's easy to just dismiss an idea because it doesn't fit with the mainstream view. That has been the sad history of science.


Firstly, decide if is one or two people, and let us know if you are one of those two. I never read any papers that contradict CMB radiation research, on contrary was watching documentary that covers its discovery. It might be interesting, as long as you provide source and point to research.

Having an idea is one thing, being able to prove it is completely another.

As for research, if we can discover planets based on tiny gravitational pull from hundreds lights away stars, not sure why would be filtering noise be any different...

And on your link I did not see problems. Care to point at what you really mean?




top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join