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.

 

Cosmic Background Radiation is Misunderstood

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Here is a problem with the cosmic background radiation.

This radiation now is very weak. So this radiation has gone from being unimaginably strong to very weak in 13.72 billion years.

But what is this background radiation. It is light in the microwave wavelength.

So should the light that we see with our eyes and intruments that show us the most distant galaxies suffer the same fate? Shouldn't this light be as distorted and weak as the cosmic background radiation? Should this light have been scattered to the point that we pick it up everywhere like we pick up the cosmic background radiation?

I think so.

If this is a correct assumption, this indicates the source of the cosmic background radiation is NOT left over energy from the big bang or we could not detect (see) very distant galaxies.

Then what is it?

Consider this. What if the big bang being big is only an illusion caused by expanding space. Since space was created, in the beginning their was not much of it. But it was crammed full of matter. So the matter/space ratio was huge giving the illusion of a Big bang. A bang that filled the very small universe. Say a pint size glass of water represents the universe full of matter at the beginning and a 55-gallon barrel with one glass of water in it is the universe now. The glass is full, but the barrel is not.

Consider the idea that in the beginning space was expanding at a rate slower than it is today and has had a constant acceleration from the beginning until now. The cosmic background radiation is not the remnants of the big bang but detectable radiation from the expansion of space from a singularity in quantum space that is occurring at all points in space NOW and since the beginning. This radiation is the noise/ooze that leaks from quantum space when the universe expands.

The origin of this space is from a dimension that is so small that humans cannot yet observe it. Only its effect on our world, expanding space, and the radiation leakage from the fabric of space that separates us from this dimension is detectable with current technology.

I propose that CERN will knock a hole in this fabric and discover this dimension and its 10e120 joules/cubic meter of vacuum energy that quantum theory predicts is there. Actually, I think CERN has already seen the energy. I think this is what caused the unexplainable spike of energy that was detected during the smashing of protons this past year. Now CERN has been shut down for one year. Why? To go back to the drawing board with a new theory where the big bang does not break the law of conservation of energy, ie something from nothing.

We will see that nothing really does contain everything.

Comments?

edit on 19-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
its a curious look at the topic but im wondering with all that in mind where do black holes fit in? are black holes potentially creating new universes with each singularity? or do you believe the "big bang singularity" to be something different than an average "black hole singularity"?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The BIg Bang is nonsense, all derived from ONE theory: that redshift equals distance. This has been proven to be wrong over and over again. Objects with higher redshift, indicating they are further away, are in FRONT of objects of lower redshift.

Since the Big Bang is obviously wrong, everything else derived from it is wrong as well. As in, most of cosmology at this point. Black holes, dark energy, dark matter. They don't know what they are looking at. Every time they point the Hubble telescope in a new direction, "astronomers are baffled". Yet they keep trying to patch up an obviously wrong theory, making it more and more complex. Smashing Occam's razor at every turn.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
its a curious look at the topic but im wondering with all that in mind where do black holes fit in? are black holes potentially creating new universes with each singularity? or do you believe the "big bang singularity" to be something different than an average "black hole singularity"?


Evidence suggests to me that a black hole is a singularity that gives space and matter back to the dimension that leaks space into our reality everywhere and always.

I do not think the laws of physics breakdown. I think they simply end when spin stops and the particles cease to exist in our universe. When matter is compressed to a point that electrons collide with the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom and the space between the quarks that comprises these particles in compressed to the point spin cannot occur, quantum spin will cease and the matter will no longer exist in our perception of reality. This matter just leaks through the fabric of space and into time-space, the real reality.

This is the opposite of expanding space, but the place where the particles go to and come from is the same. This place has one dimension of space and three dimensions of time. Since there is only one dimension of space, there is nothing to compress in time-space. Both blackholes and whiteholes have to do with quantum pressure on the fabric of space.
edit on 19-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
This indicates to me that blackholes have a size limit. They may appear to continue to consume stars, but as these stars are consumed, the quantum pressure deep within the black hole builds up to a specific point of evaporation when space and matter are forced into time-space.

This is what causes the appearance of quantum effects such as wave particle duality, quantum entanglement, and general quantum spookiness. Since we only experience one dimension of time. When it comes to time, we are similar to the people of flatland as noted by good ol doctor Quantum in this video.

www.youtube.com...

We can't see the second dimension of time. This is the place of superposition, the place of all possibilities. Most people have no concept of the second dimension of time. This is where all possibilities exist but only when we choose to observe and participate, does one possibility become fixed in our perception of reality. So when we see something from this dimension, say a ghost, we run and scream like the flat landers in the video when the 3 dimensional finger enters their visible reality.

The third dimension of time may exist as all possibilities in multiple universes.

This video crudely shows geometrically where the second dimension lies.

www.youtube.com...



edit on 19-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
The BIg Bang is nonsense, all derived from ONE theory: that redshift equals distance. This has been proven to be wrong over and over again. Objects with higher redshift, indicating they are further away, are in FRONT of objects of lower redshift.


This demands proof. Show us.

Whilst some gravitationally associated galaxies do show differing redshifts, it's because one is moving away relative to the other as they orbit their common centre of gravity. But there are ZERO instances where a significantly more distant galaxy has a lower redshift than the closer one.

As for astonomers being baffled each time they point Hubble in a new direction. I would laugh at your lack of understanding if it wasn't so desperately sad.

Youtube videos and anonymous blogs are not your friend...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by CaptChaos
The BIg Bang is nonsense, all derived from ONE theory: that redshift equals distance. This has been proven to be wrong over and over again. Objects with higher redshift, indicating they are further away, are in FRONT of objects of lower redshift.


This demands proof. Show us.

Whilst some gravitationally associated galaxies do show differing redshifts, it's because one is moving away relative to the other as they orbit their common centre of gravity. But there are ZERO instances where a significantly more distant galaxy has a lower redshift than the closer one.

As for astonomers being baffled each time they point Hubble in a new direction. I would laugh at your lack of understanding if it wasn't so desperately sad.

Youtube videos and anonymous blogs are not your friend...


The is no such thing as proof when talking cosmology. There is only evidence. The evidence indicates a paradox exists. Even Nasa recognizes this as problem.

Read about the controversy here.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.astr.ua.edu...
www.newtonphysics.on.ca...

Nasa recognizes the problem here.
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

www.physorg.com...

Here is a Nasa photo that shows galaxies connected to a quasar. Redshift says they are billions of light years apart, but they are connected by plasma. There are no billion light year long plasma streams, so the next logical conclusion is the redshift distances are wrong.

www.livingcosmos.com...

Here is the smoking gun.






edit on 19-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by consciousgod
Read about the controversy here.
I have read what Dr Halton Arp wrote, as he is a key person behind many claims in this area, but I think you are misrepresenting it to call it a controversy. Look at what Dr. Arp said on his own website:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
as Dr Arp points out:


Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.
That doesn't sound like much of a controversy to me. It sounds like Halton Arp versus the entire scientific community. I did my own analysis of the image in question at that link, and I have no problems agreeing with Arp if he's correct, but I must say, I think the other 99.9999% of scientists are probably right, and Arp is wrong.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I do not think the scientist are worried about break the law of constervation when talking about the big bang.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by consciousgod
Read about the controversy here.
I have read what Dr Halton Arp wrote, as he is a key person behind many claims in this area, but I think you are misrepresenting it to call it a controversy. Look at what Dr. Arp said on his own website:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
as Dr Arp points out:


Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.
That doesn't sound like much of a controversy to me. It sounds like Halton Arp versus the entire scientific community. I did my own analysis of the image in question at that link, and I have no problems agreeing with Arp if he's correct, but I must say, I think the other 99.9999% of scientists are probably right, and Arp is wrong.


Let's take the perspective of a professional astronomer.

He works his whole life reading literature and doing his own research. He peer reviews papers for journals. Astronomy is his life. He dreams of it while he is asleep.

Then one day this evidence shows up in his peer review mail that could mean his whole life's work has been a lie. Now if this evidence gets out, he will have to start over from the very beginning re-crunching those gazillion numbers. He knows it makes sense, but he also knows how it is going to be received by his close nit colleagues. Those that agree will be crucified by those who refuse to accept the evidence.

So he throws the mail in the trash and forgets about it, and when someone brings it up, he says its absurd and there is no evidence.

It is going to take awhile for this to take. Out with the old, in with the new.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doublemint
I do not think the scientist are worried about break the law of constervation when talking about the big bang.


Breaking fundamentals laws of physicists to make a theory work is not science. It is science fiction with a religious tone. They should worry about it because it is a good indication that the theory is wrong.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
the suggestion in big bang theory is that the background cosmic radiation is Light produced from stars millions of years ago that has been swung to the farthest edges of the universe, if we are just growing the eyes to see it now?... that the light travels the farthest scope because it is the fastest and boundlessnessed so it all jumbles at the edge and gets fuzzy?
edit on 20-1-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
or the background cosmic radiation is only viewed in one direction? which would mean we were moving away from the point of bang? but wouldnt that only be the epicenter assuming the big bang burst from every which side and way?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by consciousgod

Originally posted by Doublemint
I do not think the scientist are worried about break the law of constervation when talking about the big bang.


Breaking fundamentals laws of physicists to make a theory work is not science. It is science fiction with a religious tone. They should worry about it because it is a good indication that the theory is wrong.



In a totally different kind of universe (such as was possibly the universe at the moment of the alleged big bang), it's possible that the fundamental laws of physics may be different -- at least different from what we "think" are the fundamental laws of physics as we now them today.

There may have been a point in the past that the universe was so different that the fundamental laws of physics (as we know them) breaks down. That's not saying our knowledge of physics is wrong. On the contrary -- I think we understand the fundamental laws of physics quite well. it just may be that our understanding is "incomplete".

If observations don't match what is expected from our knowledge, then either the observation is misunderstood, or our knowledge is wrong/incomplete. Science's job is to consider BOTH of these possibilities.

I understand that we just change theories willy-nilly to match an unexpected observation, but we also just can't ignore the unexpected observation if it doesn't match what we "think" we know.



edit on 1/20/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Like previously stated, how can the 160.2 Ghz cosmic background radiation be from the big bang?

And if it is from the big bang, then what was the frequency upon occurrence of the big bang. I still don't believe this radiation is from the big bang because the energy would not be just in the microwave range. If we use the redshift calculation and run it backwards, we can determine what the frequency was when the big bang happened using this formula.

1 + z = frequency now/frequency then

so,

frequency then = frequency now/(1+z) ; where z = redshift number

The largest redshift is 8.7 corresponding to 13.1 billion years.

So the frequency of the background radiation 13.1 billion years ago was 160.2 Ghz/(8.7+1) = 160.2 Ghz/9.7

= 16.51 Ghz.

So what happened to all the other light?

Why is there only microwaves?

Other frequencies of light from this time should suffer the same fate.

If so, we could not see the image of this oldest galaxy that is 13.1 billion years old.

The fact that we can see this galaxy is evidence that what is called the cosmic microwave background radiation cannot be radiation left over from an event that happened 13.7 billion years ago.

Can anyone explain this problem?

I wonder what would happen if very high energy with a frequency of 16.51 Ghz is focused on a point is space?

Will the door open?
edit on 20-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


The CMB represents a time when the universe first became transparent. Prior to this time, light was unable to travel due to the universe being filled with hot, dense plasma. When this plasma had cooled sufficiently, it stopped absorbing light, and that light was able to propagate. That transition ("let there be light," so-to-speak) is represented by the CMB.

While the universe was still opaque, it was a perfect blackbody, and, therefore, released blackbody radiation. That's the light that existed...the universe's blackbody spectrum. That spectrum peaks at the frequency you state, but all other frequencies were also released. The CMB is not a single frequency - it's a perfect blackbody spectrum. Today, the peak frequency has been "stretched" to 160.2 GHz by the metric expansion of the universe (redshift), and the other frequencies have been "stretched" accordingly.

The light we see everyday hasn't been stretched by the same amount because it hasn't existed for 13.7 billion years. Light is emitted and absorbed on a regular basis.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This is what Nasa Ask an Astronomer says:

The Question

(Submitted May 01, 2009)
What causes the CMB to vibrate exclusively in the microwave frequency range? Why not some other frequency range, or at a variety of frequencies? What does this tell us about the nature of space, or the conditions at the time of the big bang, or both?

The Answer

The CMB follows a blackbody, or Planck spectrum, which is uniquely determined by the temperature of the emitting object - in this case the Universe . The temperature we see today is 2.7 kelvin, and this reflects how much the Universe has expanded since the time when the Universe became transparent to radiation. The universe became transparent when atoms could form, about half a million years after the Big Bang, at a temperature of about 3,000 degrees. The ratio of the temperatures then and now (3,000 degrees to ~ 3 degrees) is the ratio of the size of the universe then to the size now - a factor of 1,000.

This is also the ratio of the wavelength of light scattered then and now.

There is a huge body of literature that explains the CMB in great detail, including websites for COBE and WMAP, two satellites that made many measurements of the CMB and the uniformity of the CMB.

DON'T BUY IT.

For one, when the universe cooled and as the energy spread out, it decreased by 1/r^2. This means the size of the universe cannot increase the same factor as the energy decreases.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by consciousgod

For one, when the universe cooled and as the energy spread out, it decreased by 1/r^2. This means the size of the universe cannot increase the same factor as the energy decreases.


That's not the point of the temperature decrease. Here's the relationship between the peak wavelength and "temperature" of blackbody radiation:

(peak wavelength) = (Wien's displacement constant) / (blackbody temperature)

It's not the temperature of the light/radiation. It's the temperature of the blackbody emitting the radiation. The radiation, itself, doesn't have a temperature.
The relationship between the temperature of the blackbody and the wavelength of the radiation is inversely proportional. As the blackbody temperature increases, the peak wavelength decreases.

In the case of the CMB, there is really nothing with a temperature of 2.725 K. That's just what the temperature of the blackbody would have to be to release the blackbody spectrum of radiation we observe today. That spectrum has been redshifted by universal expansion, so the initial blackbody temperature was much higher. That's the temperature of the universe at the time the CMB formed.
edit on 20-1-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by consciousgod
Then one day this evidence shows up in his peer review mail that could mean his whole life's work has been a lie.
You didn't address the points in my post very well. There's some truth in what you say about status quo, nobody will deny that.

However, my points again which you didn't really rebut are:
1. Controversy is an overstatement, even according to Dr Arp.
2. I brought a key specific claim to the discussion, which you didn't really respond to, which was a specific bridge claimed by Arp. I looked at it myself and I have some knowledge of digital imaging, and I'm not part of the status quo problem you cited. And I don't see any bridge myself.

Regarding the so called "smoking gun" evidence you presented, there is also a straw man argument behind evidence like this.

Astronomers don't claim that there's a perfect linear correlation between redshift and distance, so redshift is not a perfect indicator of distance and it was never claimed to be. The most obvious example of this is the Andromeda galaxy which is 2 million light years away and it isn't even red shifted at all, it's actually the opposite...blue shifted. So it appears that galaxies have motions, like revolving around each other or around a center of gravity in their local galaxy group for example, which will make their redshifts deviate from a perfect linear correlation. In fact the original graph by Hubble shows that the linear relationship is only approximate:


So arguments that your smoking gun evidence shows that redshift isn't a perfect predictor of distance is arguing against a straw man, not against real science. The real science as seen in that graph has shown there are points on either side of the line which don't fall on the line for various reasons, some of which we may understand and some which we may not.

But we never claimed every point falls on the line, and not all of them do. So a smoking gun that claims it found points that don't fall exactly on the line really isn't a smoking gun at all...Hubble's original graph also shows that not all points fall right on the line.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


I can't say what the background is from but cosmic rays are held as the
source of 500 to 1000 ions per cubic centimeter and that is in the here and
now science. Also FTL particles in great untold numbers are passing through
us as perhaps the neutrino from K Capture in the billions of suns in the
universe. All those explosions in the universe mixing together might be the
background source. Why should there be anything called a left over.
What man does stands for a long time. Even the lies of man. But Creation
is not finished yet and some see no wind down and even free power available
from the universe of suns.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join