Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370574 > unrolled thread

Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 16:46 -0800
    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-23 19:10 +0000
      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-23 22:39 +0000
        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 21:04 -0800
          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-23 21:49 -0800
            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 00:34 -0800
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 01:27 -0800
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 01:36 -0800
                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 10:26 +0000
                  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 02:52 -0800
                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 11:48 +0000
                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 04:02 -0800
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 12:36 +0000
                          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 05:16 -0800
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 18:38 +0000
                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-24 20:47 +0100
          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-24 15:27 -0800
            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:48 +0000
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-24 17:39 -0800
      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 17:28 -0800
        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 18:07 -0800
          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-24 19:00 +0000
            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-27 12:22 -0600
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-27 19:37 +0100
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-28 10:17 +1100
                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 18:17 -0800
                  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-28 18:27 +0000
                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 11:02 -0800
                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-29 07:50 +1100
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 13:09 -0800
                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:44 +0000
                  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-28 17:49 -0600
                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-28 18:43 -0600
                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 17:09 -0800
                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 10:47 +0000
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 04:39 -0800
                          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 20:13 +0000
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 13:51 -0800
                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-30 20:39 +0000
                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 12:02 -0600
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:14 +0000
                          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 10:57 -0600
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:08 +0000
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:41 +0000
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-01 14:14 -0800
                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:09 +0000
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-30 20:52 +0000
                          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 15:07 -0800
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-30 17:10 -0800
                  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:30 +0100
                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 04:13 -0800
                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:15 +0000
                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:15 +0000
                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:33 +0100
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 21:47 +0000
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 14:57 -0800
                          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 07:30 +0100
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 03:12 -0800
                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 15:25 +0100
                                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 06:39 -0800
                                  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 15:57 +0100
                                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 08:25 -0800
                                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 17:50 +0100
                                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 12:06 -0800
                                          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 22:28 +0100
                                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 14:25 -0800
                                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-03 16:20 +0000
                                                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 08:23 -0800
                                  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:29 +0000
                                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 12:10 -0800
                                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:26 +0000
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:21 +0000
        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 10:25 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#371160

суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:02:43 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
написал:

> The CMBR is not really a beam. One can, of course, measure distributions
> in energy, momentum, frequency, wavelength, and direction. From those
> distributions one can extract averages, etc. The usual "average" is the
> corresponding black-body temperature.

What do you mean by "direction". The direction is irrelevant and most 
likely the distribution cross-section is equal disregard direction.

But you omit saying that the domain of propagation for the photons MUST be 
3d. Period. Those requirements impose control volumes. (modelling light 
Fluid Dynamically).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371233

On 11/30/15 11/30/15 - 12:14 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote:
> суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:02:43 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
> написал:
>> The CMBR is not really a beam. One can, of course, measure distributions
>> in energy, momentum, frequency, wavelength, and direction. From those
>> distributions one can extract averages, etc. The usual "average" is the
>> corresponding black-body temperature.
>
> What do you mean by "direction". The direction is irrelevant and most
> likely the distribution cross-section is equal disregard direction.

NONSENSE.

The key aspect of the CMBR is that it is isotropic to within a few parts in 
10^5. They know this by recording the observed temperature while pointing the 
instrument in different directions. So direction is not at all "disregarded".

	They do omit foreground sources (e.g. stars), and they
	subtract off the overall dipole (due to the motion of
	the instrument).


> [... word salad omitted]


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371238

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 10:57:16 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/30/15 11/30/15 - 12:14 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote:

>>
>> What do you mean by "direction". The direction is irrelevant and most
>> likely the distribution cross-section is equal disregard direction.
> 
> NONSENSE.
> 
> The key aspect of the CMBR is that it is isotropic to within a few parts
> in 10^5. They know this by recording the observed temperature while
> pointing the instrument in different directions. So direction is not at
> all "disregarded".
> 
> 	They do omit foreground sources (e.g. stars), and they subtract 
off the
> 	overall dipole (due to the motion of the instrument).

'The motion of the instrument'???

Since correcting for that results in isotropy, there is an implication 
that our region of space has a kind of 'absoluteness'.
It's a bit like saying the end of a rainbow depends on observer movement.

I like that. It fits in with my BaTh theory that the universe is like a 
gigantic, turbulent and very rare gas.
  
>> [... word salad omitted]

Please do not omit what I just said simply because you cannot understand 
the implications.
 
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371244

суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 10:57:16 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
написал:

> On 11/30/15 11/30/15 - 12:14 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote:
>> суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:02:43 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
>> написал:
>>> The CMBR is not really a beam. One can, of course, measure
>>> distributions in energy, momentum, frequency, wavelength, and
>>> direction. From those distributions one can extract averages, etc. The
>>> usual "average" is the corresponding black-body temperature.
>>
>> What do you mean by "direction". The direction is irrelevant and most
>> likely the distribution cross-section is equal disregard direction.
> 
> NONSENSE.

This NONSENSE is entirely YOURS. I hope I'm not wasting my time on an 
amateur or a complete moron.

> The key aspect of the CMBR is that it is isotropic to within a few parts
> in 10^5. 

LOL, you just say the same I said, but in a stupid way

> They know this by recording the observed temperature while
> pointing the instrument in different directions. So direction is not at
> all "disregarded".
> 
> 	They do omit foreground sources (e.g. stars), and they subtract 
off the	overall dipole (due to the motion of the instrument).
>> [... word salad omitted]

You must be the later approach. Not an amateur, but a complete moron. My 
bad.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371259

W dniu wtorek, 1 grudnia 2015 17:57:19 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> 	They do omit foreground sources (e.g. stars), and they
> 	subtract off the overall dipole (due to the motion of
> 	the instrument).


Oh! Finally the instrument indeed moves within a light frame.
So, the whole relativistic ideology is just a hypocrisy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371307

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:14:04 -0800, alsor wrote:

> W dniu wtorek, 1 grudnia 2015 17:57:19 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137
> napisał:
> 
>> 	They do omit foreground sources (e.g. stars), and they subtract 
off
>> 	the overall dipole (due to the motion of the instrument).
> 
> 
> Oh! Finally the instrument indeed moves within a light frame.
> So, the whole relativistic ideology is just a hypocrisy.

Not only that, a few parts in 10^-5 is hardly isotropic. The earth is 
calculated to be moving at 371 km/s in the 'COSMIC REST FRAME'. Goodbye 
relativity!

It is pretty obvious from the number of different theories that none of 
the CMBR researchers has much of a clue about its origin. That is because 
they are all totally indoctrinated with Einsteiniana and the BB concept.
Anyone who suggests a conflicting theory will be immediately declared a 
crackpot and ostracized from the physics establishment. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371181

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:02:43 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/28/15 11/28/15 - 7:09 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> It simply is not possible to discuss the "volume" of a photon -- the
>>> concept simply does not apply.
>>
>> Well, the one who calls himself "Henry Wilson, DSc" hasn't a clue about
>> photons.  Certainly, groups of them obey superposition, so parceling
>> out space for each of them lacks some validity, but "Wilson's" nonsense
>> is completely invalid.
> 
> Yes.

...but you have never explained why...

> 
>>> What is the "length" of the visible photons of a laboratory He-Ne
>>> laser with a coherence length of 5 meters? Certainly there is more
>>> going on that just its wavelength (632.8 nm). Or just its coherence
>>> length.
>>> Similar issues apply transversely....
>>
>> But the CMBR is not coherent.
> 
> This was a completely different example of why "volume" does not apply
> to photons. I should have explained that better.

You might try to explain that more precisely too.
 
>>> Ordinary concepts that apply to particles and/or waves usually do NOT
>>> apply to photons. While the following properties can often be ascribed
>>> to light rays and radio signals, NONE of them actually apply to
>>> individual photons:
>>> 	wavelength, frequency, energy, momentum, size, direction
>>> These are all emergent properties of a beam consisting of a large
>>> number of photons.
>>
>> And since there are bazillions of them in the CMBR, these properties
>> apply.
> 
> The CMBR is not really a beam. One can, of course, measure distributions
> in energy, momentum, frequency, wavelength, and direction. From those
> distributions one can extract averages, etc. The usual "average" is the
> corresponding black-body temperature.

'Empty' space radiates like a black body at about 2.7K. So what? Its 
sources are spread throughout the universe but not evenly. 
According to revised BaTh, individual light quanta do not remain 
individual for very long. Their fields interact and merge somewhat to 
form complex wavefronts in all directions. Huygen's principle is related 
to that concept.

> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371195

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> 'Empty' space radiates like a black body at about 2.7K.

Assertion without evidence.  Information, please.

> So what? Its sources are spread throughout the universe but not evenly.

It looks pretty uniform to me.
 
> According to revised BaTh, individual light quanta do not remain 
> individual for very long. Their fields interact and merge somewhat to 
> form complex wavefronts in all directions. Huygen's principle is related 
> to that concept.

Which refutes your claim that space is empty :-))

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371198

W dniu poniedziałek, 30 listopada 2015 19:02:45 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 

> The CMBR is not really a beam. One can, of course, measure distributions in 
> energy, momentum, frequency, wavelength, and direction. From those distributions 
> one can extract averages, etc. The usual "average" is the corresponding 
> black-body temperature.

That's evident, because any material body,
in the stationary state, is just the black body.

Therefore the the BB is a fixation of imbeciles only,
like the whole these so called non-classical science:
relativity, quantum, and any other post geocentric idiocy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371203

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 4:17:11 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:22:58 -0600, Tom Roberts
>> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > On 11/24/15 11/24/15   1:00 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> > > If you were suddenly dropped into remote space, it would be very
>> > > black everywhere around you unless you were close to a galaxy.
>> > Yes, with "close" being a few thousand lightyears. NOTE: this is due to
>> > the physiology of your eyes.
>> >
>> > If you counted photons, you would find there are LOTS of them, most of
>> > which are in the CMBR -- hundreds of millions per cubic meter.
>> Tom I really feel sorry for you. Each one is traveling at 3E8 m/sec.
>> If you estimate the volume each one, you will be able to calculate that
>> at any instant, only a very small fraction of each cubic metre is
>> occupied by 'photonic material'..
> 
> Poor, poor Ralphie-boy!  He is completely bereft of mathematical ability.

Knowing math alone is insufficient to solve this problem properly.

> Most of the photons are from the CMBR which has a nominal temperature of
> 2.7 kelvins,

2.72548±0.00057 K today (Fixsen, 2009)

> i.e., its wavelength is about 6 mm,

How did you get that idea?

> which is its localization range. 

ISTM that “localization range” is a term which in that regard you just 
invented.

> This means that each one takes up 2x10^-7 cubic meter, or only
> 5 million of them can fill a cubic meter.  20 times that amount will stuff
> that cube quite full.  […]

How did you get the idea that the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation is 
related to the number of its photons that could fit within a volume of 
space?


PointedEars
___________
Fixsen, D. J. (2009). The temperature of the cosmic microwave background. 
The Astrophysical Journal, 707(2), 916.
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371223

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 4:17:11 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom I really feel sorry for you. [And other lies]
> > > Each one is traveling at 3E8 m/sec.
> > > If you estimate the volume each one, you will be able to calculate that
> > > at any instant, only a very small fraction of each cubic metre is
> > > occupied by 'photonic material'..
> > 
> > Poor, poor Ralphie-boy!  He is completely bereft of mathematical ability.
> 
> Knowing math alone is insufficient to solve this problem properly.

This is true.  One must have some knowledge of physics to even make a WAG.

> > Most of the photons are from the CMBR which has a nominal temperature of
> > 2.7 kelvins,
> 
> 2.72548±0.00057 K today (Fixsen, 2009)
> 
> > i.e., its wavelength is about 6 mm,
> 
> How did you get that idea?

E = k*T = h*c/lambda

> > which is its localization range. 
> 
> ISTM that "localization range" is a term which in that regard you just 
> invented.

Sort of.  I assumed that a detector more than one wavelength away from a
photon would interact weakly with it as the photon went past.

> > This means that each one takes up 2x10^-7 cubic meter, or only
> > 5 million of them can fill a cubic meter.  20 times that amount will stuff
> > that cube quite full.  [...]
> 
> How did you get the idea that the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation is 
> related to the number of its photons that could fit within a volume of 
> space?
> 
> PointedEars

WAG, which is more than "Wilson" provided with his worse-than-WAG assertion.
For the record, I wasn't the one that came up with the idea, "Wilson" did.
My purpose was to demonstrate that his bald-faced assertion was baloney
(it was a not-even-wrong example of sophistry).

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371239

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 04:13:00 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'

>> 
>> Knowing math alone is insufficient to solve this problem properly.
> 
> This is true.  One must have some knowledge of physics to even make a
> WAG.
> 
>> > Most of the photons are from the CMBR which has a nominal temperature
>> > of 2.7 kelvins,
>> 
>> 2.72548±0.00057 K today (Fixsen, 2009)
>> 
>> > i.e., its wavelength is about 6 mm,
>> 
>> How did you get that idea?
> 
> E = k*T = h*c/lambda
> 
>> > which is its localization range.
>> 
>> ISTM that "localization range" is a term which in that regard you just
>> invented.
> 
> Sort of.  I assumed that a detector more than one wavelength away from a
> photon would interact weakly with it as the photon went past.
> 
>> > This means that each one takes up 2x10^-7 cubic meter, or only 5
>> > million of them can fill a cubic meter.  20 times that amount will
>> > stuff that cube quite full.  [...]
>> 
>> How did you get the idea that the wavelength of electromagnetic
>> radiation is related to the number of its photons that could fit within
>> a volume of space?
>> 
>> PointedEars
> 
> WAG, which is more than "Wilson" provided with his worse-than-WAG
> assertion.
> For the record, I wasn't the one that came up with the idea, "Wilson"
> did.
> My purpose was to demonstrate that his bald-faced assertion was baloney
> (it was a not-even-wrong example of sophistry).

Crap! Even your own colleagues regard you as an embarassing liability to 
their cause.
You are living proof that Einstein's theory is supported by ignorant 
cretins. 

> Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371240

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 04:13:00 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'

>> 
>> Knowing math alone is insufficient to solve this problem properly.
> 
> This is true.  One must have some knowledge of physics to even make a
> WAG.
> 
>> > Most of the photons are from the CMBR which has a nominal temperature
>> > of 2.7 kelvins,
>> 
>> 2.72548±0.00057 K today (Fixsen, 2009)
>> 
>> > i.e., its wavelength is about 6 mm,
>> 
>> How did you get that idea?
> 
> E = k*T = h*c/lambda
> 
>> > which is its localization range.
>> 
>> ISTM that "localization range" is a term which in that regard you just
>> invented.
> 
> Sort of.  I assumed that a detector more than one wavelength away from a
> photon would interact weakly with it as the photon went past.
> 
>> > This means that each one takes up 2x10^-7 cubic meter, or only 5
>> > million of them can fill a cubic meter.  20 times that amount will
>> > stuff that cube quite full.  [...]
>> 
>> How did you get the idea that the wavelength of electromagnetic
>> radiation is related to the number of its photons that could fit within
>> a volume of space?
>> 
>> PointedEars
> 
> WAG, which is more than "Wilson" provided with his worse-than-WAG
> assertion.
> For the record, I wasn't the one that came up with the idea, "Wilson"
> did.
> My purpose was to demonstrate that his bald-faced assertion was baloney
> (it was a not-even-wrong example of sophistry).

Crap! Even your own colleagues regard you as an embarassing liability to 
their cause.
You are living proof that Einstein's theory is supported by ignorant 
cretins. 

> Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371254

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

Attribution line, not attribution novel.

>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 4:17:11 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Tom I really feel sorry for you. [And other lies]
>> > > Each one is traveling at 3E8 m/sec.
>> > > If you estimate the volume each one, you will be able to calculate
>> > > that at any instant, only a very small fraction of each cubic metre
>> > > is occupied by 'photonic material'..
>> > 
>> > Poor, poor Ralphie-boy!  He is completely bereft of mathematical
>> > ability.
>> 
>> Knowing math alone is insufficient to solve this problem properly.
> 
> This is true.  One must have some knowledge of physics to even make a WAG.

Obviously, WAGs can be done with insufficient knowledge of physics as well.
 
>> > Most of the photons are from the CMBR which has a nominal temperature
>> > of 2.7 kelvins,
>> 
>> 2.72548±0.00057 K today (Fixsen, 2009)
>> 
>> > i.e., its wavelength is about 6 mm,
>> 
>> How did you get that idea?
> 
> E = k*T = h*c/lambda

  E = k T

where k is the Boltzmann constant and T the absolute temperature, is only 
true for the *thermal* energy of systems with *two* degrees of freedom, as 
the general equation for *thermal* energy is

  E = N 1∕2 k T

where N is the number of the degrees of freedom.

  λ = 2 ℎ c∕(3 k × 2.72548 K) ≈ 3.5199 mm,

but that is still too much because although EM waves propagate in three-
dimensional space, such a system has a lot more degrees of freedom than just 
three.  With 6 degrees of freedom, as expected, you get approximately the 
correct value:

  λ = 2 ℎ c∕(6 k × 2.72548 K) ≈ 1.7597 mm


But in general your approach, and that approach, is _not_ how you can 
calculate the wavelength of the electromagnetic (EM) waves associated with 
EM radiation of a certain absolute temperature.

Instead, the equation that applies here is that of Planck’s law of black-
body radiation, where spectral radiance is

  I(f, T) = 2 ℎ∕c² f³∕(e^(ℎ f∕k T) − 1)

or

  I(λ, T) = 2 ℎ c²∕λ⁵ 1∕(e^(ℎ c∕(λ k T)) − 1) ¹)

For a given absolute temperature T, these functions have a local maximum 
each that defines the *peak* frequency or *peak* wavelength, respectively, 
of the corresponding electromagnetic wave (which you can determine by 
solving numerically the equations dI(f, T)∕df = 0 for f or dI(λ, T)∕dλ = 0 
for λ).

For the CMBR with the absolute temperature as measured above, these are ca. 
160.2 GHz and 1.871 mm, respectively (ibid.)
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Planck.27s_law_of_black-body_radiation>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law>

>> > which is its localization range.
>> 
>> ISTM that "localization range" is a term which in that regard you just
>> invented.
> 
> Sort of.  I assumed that a detector more than one wavelength away from a
> photon would interact weakly with it as the photon went past.

You can view EM radiation as *either* an EM wave that has frequencies and 
wavelengths, *or* as a beam of photons where each one is carrying a distinct 
amount of energy, but _not_ both at the same time (wave–particle duality).
 
>> > This means that each one takes up 2x10^-7 cubic meter, or only
>> > 5 million of them can fill a cubic meter.  20 times that amount will
>> > stuff
>> > that cube quite full.  [...]
>> 
>> How did you get the idea that the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation
>> is related to the number of its photons that could fit within a volume of
>> space?
> 
> WAG,

“Wild Ass Guess”?  Yes, I figured as much.

> which is more than "Wilson" provided with his worse-than-WAG
> assertion. For the record, I wasn't the one that came up with the idea,
> "Wilson" did. My purpose was to demonstrate that his bald-faced assertion
> was baloney (it was a not-even-wrong example of sophistry).

That is not so.  His assertion was that one could do that calculation, and 
your response to that was not (which it should have been) that the 
calculation as such were nonsense but just that the figures were wrong.

The calculation as such is nonsense because photons are _not_ little energy 
balls moving along the waveform.  Instead, they are *quantum* objects.  
Since they have no known inner structure, they must be assumed to be *point-
like*.

For quantum objects one can only specify their position which an uncertainty 
that is limited by how precisely one can tell their momentum (uncertainty 
principle: σₓσₚ ≥ ℏ∕2, where the σ’s are the standard deviation of position 
x and momentum p, respectively, and ℏ = ℎ∕2π).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle>

So there is a probability greater than 0 that much more than your 5 million 
photons would fit into a volume of a cubic meter.


PointedEars
___________
¹) one can also find ν = f and I = L_ν = B_ν or I = B_λ and other names than
   “spectral radiance” in the literature
-- 
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
   does it take to change a light bulb?  
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371257

суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 22:33:40 +0100 пользователь Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn написал:

> For quantum objects one can only specify their position which an
> uncertainty that is limited by how precisely one can tell their momentum
> (uncertainty principle: σₓσₚ ≥ ℏ∕2, where the σ’s are the standard
> deviation of position x and momentum p, respectively, and ℏ = ℎ∕2π).
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle>
> 
> So there is a probability greater than 0 that much more than your 5
> million photons would fit into a volume of a cubic meter.

You are so unbelievable stupid, pointedhead. Is not an insult.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371262

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:33:45 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > ....  One must have some knowledge of physics to even make a WAG.
> 
> Obviously, WAGs can be done with insufficient knowledge of physics as well.
> ....
> > E = k*T = h*c/lambda
> 
>   E = k T
> 
> where k is the Boltzmann constant and T the absolute temperature, is only 
> true for the *thermal* energy of systems with *two* degrees of freedom, as 
> the general equation for *thermal* energy is
> 
>   E = N 1∕2 k T
> 
> where N is the number of the degrees of freedom.
> 
>   λ = 2 ℎ c∕(3 k × 2.72548 K) ≈ 3.5199 mm,
> 
> but that is still too much because although EM waves propagate in three-
> dimensional space, such a system has a lot more degrees of freedom than just 
> three.  With 6 degrees of freedom, as expected, you get approximately the 
> correct value:
> 
>   λ = 2 ℎ c∕(6 k × 2.72548 K) ≈ 1.7597 mm

Which means even more photons with longer interaction range (wavelength)

> But in general your approach, and that approach, is _not_ how you can 
> calculate the wavelength of the electromagnetic (EM) waves associated with 
> EM radiation of a certain absolute temperature.
> 
> Instead, the equation that applies here is that of Planck’s law of black-
> body radiation, where spectral radiance is
> 
>   I(f, T) = 2 ℎ∕c² f³∕(e^(ℎ f∕k T) − 1)
> 
> or
> 
>   I(λ, T) = 2 ℎ c²∕λ⁵ 1∕(e^(ℎ c∕(λ k T)) − 1) ¹)
> 
> For a given absolute temperature T, these functions have a local maximum 
> each that defines the *peak* frequency or *peak* wavelength, respectively, 
> of the corresponding electromagnetic wave (which you can determine by 
> solving numerically the equations dI(f, T)∕df = 0 for f or dI(λ, T)∕dλ = 0 
> for λ).
> 
> For the CMBR with the absolute temperature as measured above, these are ca. 
> 160.2 GHz and 1.871 mm, respectively (ibid.)

What is it about "WAG" that you don't understand.  Everything you have done
is only to strengthen my argument.

> .... 
> > Sort of.  I assumed that a detector more than one wavelength away from a
> > photon would interact weakly with it as the photon went past.
> 
> You can view EM radiation as *either* an EM wave that has frequencies and 
> wavelengths, *or* as a beam of photons where each one is carrying a distinct 
> amount of energy, but _not_ both at the same time (wave–particle duality).

C'mon!  Wave-particle DUALITY means both phenomena are present.

> > WAG,
> 
> “Wild Ass Guess”?  Yes, I figured as much.
> 
> > which is more than "Wilson" provided with his worse-than-WAG
> > assertion. For the record, I wasn't the one that came up with the idea,
> > "Wilson" did. My purpose was to demonstrate that his bald-faced assertion
> > was baloney (it was a not-even-wrong example of sophistry).
> 
> That is not so.  His assertion was that one could do that calculation, and 
> your response to that was not (which it should have been) that the 
> calculation as such were nonsense but just that the figures were wrong.

Irrelevant and counter-productive.  "Wilson" isn't affected by a rational
response.

> The calculation as such is nonsense because photons are _not_ little energy 
> balls moving along the waveform.  Instead, they are *quantum* objects.  
> Since they have no known inner structure, they must be assumed to be *point-
> like*.

I agree with that and you agree with that.  "Wilson" doesn't.

> For quantum objects one can only specify their position which an uncertainty 
> that is limited by how precisely one can tell their momentum (uncertainty 
> principle: σₓσₚ ≥ ℏ∕2, where the σ’s are the standard deviation of position 
> x and momentum p, respectively, and ℏ = ℎ∕2π).
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle>
> 
> So there is a probability greater than 0 that much more than your 5 million 
> photons would fit into a volume of a cubic meter.
> 
> PointedEars

But not "Wilson's" idea of photons.  Your argument makes sense only to
sane and intelligent people.  You're just jealous because you can't argue
with "Henry" on his own turf :-)

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371279

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> ....  One must have some knowledge of physics to even make a WAG.
>> Obviously, WAGs can be done with insufficient knowledge of physics as 
>> well. ....
>> 
>> > E = k*T = h*c/lambda
>> E = k T
>> 
>> […] is only true for the *thermal* energy of systems with *two* degrees
>> of freedom […] With 6 degrees of freedom, as expected, you get 
>> approximately the correct value: […]
> 
> Which means even more photons with longer interaction range (wavelength)

Not even wrong.

>> Instead, the equation that applies here is that of Planck’s law of 
>> black- body radiation, […] For the CMBR with the absolute temperature 
>> as measured above, these are ca. 160.2 GHz and 1.871 mm, respectively 
>> (ibid.)
> 
> What is it about "WAG" that you don't understand.

What is it about “attribution _line_” that you do not understand?

> Everything you have done is only to strengthen my argument.

Hardly.  You argued that your WAG were in any way better than Henry Wilson’s
because you had some knowledge of physics.  It has been shown repeatedly now
that it was not, that you have insufficient knowledge of physics to make
that claim, and that therefore your ideas and figures were dead wrong, too.
 You should learn from that and practice more humility next time.

>> You can view EM radiation as *either* an EM wave that has frequencies 
>> and wavelengths, *or* as a beam of photons where each one is carrying
>> a distinct amount of energy, but _not_ both at the same time (wave– 
>> particle duality).
> 
> C'mon!  Wave-particle DUALITY means both phenomena are present.

Not in the way that you think.


PointedEars
.
.
.
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371286

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 11:30:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > ....  One must have some knowledge of physics to even make a WAG.
> > >
> > > Obviously, WAGs can be done with insufficient knowledge of physics as 
> > > well. ....
> > > 
> > > > E = k*T = h*c/lambda
> > >
> > > E = k T
> > > 
> > > [...] is only true for the *thermal* energy of systems with *two* degrees
> > > of freedom [...] With 6 degrees of freedom, as expected, you get 
> > > approximately the correct value: [...]
> > 
> > Which means even more photons with longer interaction range (wavelength)
> 
> Not even wrong.

So you don't believe that more photons exist at longer wavelengths than
at shorter ones for the same amount of energy?

> > > Instead, the equation that applies here is that of Planck's law of 
> > > black- body radiation, [...] For the CMBR with the absolute temperature 
> > > as measured above, these are ca. 160.2 GHz and 1.871 mm, respectively 
> > > (ibid.)
> > 
> > What is it about "WAG" that you don't understand.
> 
> What is it about "attribution _line_" that you do not understand?

Changing the subject because you're losing the argument?

> > Everything you have done is only to strengthen my argument.
> 
> Hardly.  You argued that your WAG were in any way better than Henry
> Wilson's because you had some knowledge of physics.

Wow!  Now THAT'S a deep dive into an empty swimming pool!

> It has been shown repeatedly now that it was not, that you have
> insufficient knowledge of physics to make that claim, and that therefore
> your ideas and figures were dead wrong, too.

Wow again!  Does it really hurt you that much to ever be wrong, to allow
ANY slack whatever in a meaningless argument?

>  You should learn from that and practice more humility next time.

You seem to be the one hell-bent on "having to be right all the time."

> > > You can view EM radiation as *either* an EM wave that has frequencies 
> > > and wavelengths, *or* as a beam of photons where each one is carrying
> > > a distinct amount of energy, but _not_ both at the same time (wave- 
> > > particle duality).
> > 
> > C'mon!  Wave-particle DUALITY means both phenomena are present.
> 
> Not in the way that you think.
>
> PointedEars

Just how do you think I think?  Isn't it a bit arrogant of you?

"Discussion is always better than argument, because argument is to
find WHO is right and discussion is to find WHAT is right." - Anon.

If you were a dog, you'd be a pit bull.  Carrying on this ARGUMENT (not
"discussion") is pointless yammering.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371297

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> > [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> > > > ....  One must have some knowledge of physics to even make a WAG.
>> > > Obviously, WAGs can be done with insufficient knowledge of physics as
>> > > well. ....
>> > > 
>> > > > E = k*T = h*c/lambda
>> > > E = k T
>> > > 
>> > > [...] is only true for the *thermal* energy of systems with *two*
>> > > [degrees
>> > > of freedom [...] With 6 degrees of freedom, as expected, you get
>> > > approximately the correct value: [...]
>> > Which means even more photons with longer interaction range
>> > (wavelength)
>> Not even wrong.
> 
> So you don't believe that more photons exist at longer wavelengths than
> at shorter ones for the same amount of energy?

Strawman; that is _not_ what I meant.

[The energy that a photon has, and transports, is always

  E_γ = p c = ℎ f = ℎ c∕λ,

and the energy that electromagnetic (EM) radiation transports can therefore 
be described by

  E_r = n E_γ = n p c = n ℎ f = n ℎ c∕λ

where n is the number of photons traveling through a *cross-section* of 
space.

So it is true that for the same amount of *total* energy to be transported 
by EM radiation with longer wavelengths/lower frequencies than shorter 
wavelengths/higher frequencies, more photons are required to travel *through 
that cross-section*: the *intensity* of the radiation would have to 
increase.¹]

But that has nothing to do with your assertion that there would be more 
photons located within a *volume* then.

And it has nothing to do with your invented property of photons of 
“interaction range”, which you mistakenly equate with wavelength.

Because photons have mass zero [1] and are the carriers of the EM 
*interaction*, the range of the EM interaction is infinite; the 
wavelength/frequency of EM *radiation* is irrelevant in that regard.

AISB, you are confusing the properties of the wave interpretation of EM 
radiation with those of its particle interpretation.  They are related (see 
above), but not in the way that you think.
 
>> > > Instead, the equation that applies here is that of Planck's law of
>> > > black- body radiation, [...] For the CMBR with the absolute
>> > > temperature as measured above, these are ca. 160.2 GHz and 1.871 mm,
>> > > respectively (ibid.)
>> > 
>> > What is it about "WAG" that you don't understand.
>> What is it about "attribution _line_" that you do not understand?
> 
> Changing the subject because you're losing the argument?

No, just hinting at your own obtuseness.
 
> Just how do you think I think?

As you have demonstrated.

> Isn't it a bit arrogant of you?

No, that you have a misconception there is evident from your statements.
 

HTH

PointedEars
___________
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon>
    <http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/listings/rpp2014-list-photon.pdf>

¹  That is why e.g. gamma radiation is life-threatening and e.g. human-
   visible light usually is not: the former has the ability to transport 
   much more energy per unit time than the latter.  It is also why you get 
   sunburn and photokeratitis, and can get skin cancer, only after 
   *prolonged* exposure to sunlight – the shorter the thinner the ozone
   layer is above you, filtering out UV radiation.
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371299

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:25:33 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> [OCD stuff]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnzz-eFmKaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web