CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:12 am

Max Planck derived correct form for the radiation distribution. I am not sure what the word “correct” stands for. Was new formulas agreed with experiments or just removed infinity?

Planck assumed that energy could be emitted only by discrete values called quanta. The quantum physics was born. Later Albert Einstein and Satyendra Nath Bose came with the postulate that hypothetical Planck's quanta were real particles called photons.


Ah, the well known let's make up a new measurement then pretend the measurement is a real thing but also variable just in case the math doesn't work... shtick. Why I bought an inch and second stretcher the other day and it works well, now I'm seldom late for work relatively speaking.
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby crawler » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:00 pm

Electrodynamic wrote:Crawler
U mention radiation & microwave radiation & EM radiation, & u wonder where it all went (ie Olber's Paradox). Conrad Ranzan explains that some of it iz redshifted out of existence, & some iz annihilated in blackholes (but not in silly singularities).


Olber's Paradox... very interesting, thank you.
"the apparent paradox that if stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe of infinite age, the night sky should display a uniform glow, since every line of sight would terminate at a star. But with an expanding universe of finite age, visible light from very distant stars has not reached the Earth."

So let me get this straight... Olbers believed that there should be a universal glow despite the fact that each star as a point source becomes infinitely smaller and less intense with distance (inverse square law) and the light is absorbed and converted into non-visible infrared EM energy by all matter present. You know they say about 60 tons of space dust falls to Earth each day...but from where?.

Now we could start connecting the dots, the universe is full of space dust not unlike a universal fog obscuring the light from distant stars and also converting the light energy to infrared EM energy which is not visible. We could call it "dark matter" then this conversion and supposed disappearance of energy could be called "dark energy". I don't know...it seems kind of obvious why there is no uniform glow in my opinion and it would relate to 1)the conservation of energy, 2)the transformation of energy and 3)the physical properties relating to each state of energy.

The lack of a uniform universal glow to substantiate the big bang theory just seems weak in my opinion. If a theory cannot stand on it's own two feet then... it ain't standing, maybe sitting possibly crouching at best.

On a side note the same misunderstanding relates to climate change. I talk to many people and they seem to have no comprehension how light energy(EM radiation ie. radiant energy) from the Sun transforms into heat energy(molecular oscillations)absorbed by the Earth which cannot be radiated back into space like light because... it's not light it's heat. You know like an insulated green house, the green house effect and apparently greenhouses are impossible and a Chinese hoax. It's just amazing how awesome people are I just wish more of them understood high school physics.
If radiation is absorbed by dust then Earth should fry due to heat (if an infinite universe). Ranzan explains why not.

Global Warming needs urgent attention koz GW might be true. That it might be true should be enuff to make everyone krapp their pants. No need to wait for proof.
crawler
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby crawler » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:17 pm

nick c wrote:The best explanation I have seen, Don Scott on Olber's Paradox:
http://electric-cosmos.org/Olber.pdf
Don iz wrong. An infinite number of stars shining for an infinite number of years adds to an infinite intensity of radiation of all wavelengths (well vizible & infra anyhow). The number of photons per second hitting a nerve in a retina aint relevant, or it iz, koz that number iz infinite, even if made up of an infinite number of dim (invizible) stars.

The only explanation iz Ranzan's. All others (that i hav seen) defy conservation (inklooding Scott's).

Confined photons (matter) iz annihilated in blackholes. And free photons (radiation) are stretched to extinction by the Ranzanian redshift mechanism (energy becomes zero)(mass becomes zero).

In effekt Ranzan introduces Ranzanian Conservation, a kind of conservation that links our quantum universe with the subquantum aether (the fundamental essence).
crawler
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby nick c » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:55 pm

crawler,
Your assumption that the light accumulates is incorrect. A distant star cannot be seen by the human eye because it is too dim. You either see it or you don't.
The human eye does not accumulate light. That is why astrophotography can reveal much more than visual observation through the same telescope. The film or CCD chip can accumulate light.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby crawler » Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:30 am

nick c wrote:crawler,
Your assumption that the light accumulates is incorrect. A distant star cannot be seen by the human eye because it is too dim. You either see it or you don't.
The human eye does not accumulate light. That is why astrophotography can reveal much more than visual observation through the same telescope. The film or CCD chip can accumulate light.
A dim star might block vizible photons, & invizible photons, but the energy iz not lost. If the vizible light duznt fry Earth, then the invizible light will. But the vizible light will fry Earth, except for Ranzanian annihilation & extinction.
crawler
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:15 am

Don iz wrong. An infinite number of stars shining for an infinite number of years adds to an infinite intensity of radiation of all wavelengths (well vizible & infra anyhow)


I think I see where your reasoning took a left turn.

Suppose energy from the Sun struck the Earth and heated the ground which caused evaporation/thermals causing the wind speed to increase. Does the wind, a moving mass of air, radiate energy back into space?. Well no the energy was transformed from EM radiation to physical motion in a mass and does not add to radiation. It does not add because the Energy state has changed and the energy cannot radiate.

Think of it this way... stars tear stuff apart and all other bodies in the universe put the stuff back together to balance the equation. Stars "Radiate" energy/mass from themselves and all other bodies "gravitate" this energy/mass towards themselves and absorb/transform it. There are two forces at work, 1)Entropy which radiates Energy outward and 2)Syntropy which gravitates Energy inward. This should sound familiar because it relates to equal and opposite action/reaction and the conservation of Energy.

Obviously if what your saying were true and "an infinite number of years adds to an infinite intensity of radiation" then where did the Energy absorbed by the planets and other bodies come from?.
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby crawler » Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:13 pm

Electrodynamic wrote:
Don iz wrong. An infinite number of stars shining for an infinite number of years adds to an infinite intensity of radiation of all wavelengths (well vizible & infra anyhow)


I think I see where your reasoning took a left turn.

Suppose energy from the Sun struck the Earth and heated the ground which caused evaporation/thermals causing the wind speed to increase. Does the wind, a moving mass of air, radiate energy back into space?. Well no the energy was transformed from EM radiation to physical motion in a mass and does not add to radiation. It does not add because the Energy state has changed and the energy cannot radiate.

Think of it this way... stars tear stuff apart and all other bodies in the universe put the stuff back together to balance the equation. Stars "Radiate" energy/mass from themselves and all other bodies "gravitate" this energy/mass towards themselves and absorb/transform it. There are two forces at work, 1)Entropy which radiates Energy outward and 2)Syntropy which gravitates Energy inward. This should sound familiar because it relates to equal and opposite action/reaction and the conservation of Energy.

Obviously if what your saying were true and "an infinite number of years adds to an infinite intensity of radiation" then where did the Energy absorbed by the planets and other bodies come from?.
Yes i agree that some energy can go to kinetic energy & praps potential. Impacts would return that energy back to heat & radiation again. Impacts change the bulk speed to micro speed (vibration in a lattice), then the lattice radiates.

Re an infinite energy etc, this kums from the infinite universe, during infinite years.
crawler
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:44 pm

Yes i agree that some energy can go to kinetic energy & praps potential. Impacts would return that energy back to heat & radiation again. Impacts change the bulk speed to micro speed (vibration in a lattice), then the lattice radiates.


All energy is kinetic in it's nature because all energy relates directly to the motion of something on any given scale. As well, potential energy is not something nor is it real energy as motion it is a measure of the potential to change the extent of motion in something. A measure of something is not something tangible in itself because we have already defined it as a measure. An "inch" is not energy just because something has the potential to move an inch, the energy is the motion of something tangible actually moving an inch.

I would agree impacts can add energy causing radiation likewise energy can be absorbed falling to a lower energy state and not radiated. The fact remains that the Entropy-Syntropy equation must balance as defined by the conservation of energy. A more energetic universe demands more energy be absorbed by matter likewise more energetic matter demands more energy be radiated to the universe.

You seem to be implying energy would just continue to radiate without being absorbed and transformed contrary to the conservation of energy and accepted scientific observations. The universe is not lit up like an incandescent bulb therefore... Syntropy.
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby crawler » Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:22 pm

Electrodynamic wrote:
Yes i agree that some energy can go to kinetic energy & praps potential. Impacts would return that energy back to heat & radiation again. Impacts change the bulk speed to micro speed (vibration in a lattice), then the lattice radiates.
All energy is kinetic in it's nature because all energy relates directly to the motion of something on any given scale. As well, potential energy is not something nor is it real energy as motion it is a measure of the potential to change the extent of motion in something. A measure of something is not something tangible in itself because we have already defined it as a measure. An "inch" is not energy just because something has the potential to move an inch, the energy is the motion of something tangible actually moving an inch.

I would agree impacts can add energy causing radiation likewise energy can be absorbed falling to a lower energy state and not radiated. The fact remains that the Entropy-Syntropy equation must balance as defined by the conservation of energy. A more energetic universe demands more energy be absorbed by matter likewise more energetic matter demands more energy be radiated to the universe.

You seem to be implying energy would just continue to radiate without being absorbed and transformed contrary to the conservation of energy and accepted scientific observations. The universe is not lit up like an incandescent bulb therefore... Syntropy.
In effect Ranzan explains how the subquantum affects the quantum world. Mass (quantum) is annihilated in blackholes. And mass is created in certain zones in each cosmic cell. So conservation laws are broken in both zones, but overall we hav a conservation of sorts (at least in the long term).

Then we hav Ranzan's explanation of the extinction of photons. Photons are stretched as they pass throo each cosmic cell, & ultimately are stretched out of existence. Here the mass & energy of each photon reduces. But where duz the energy go? I dont hav an answer. Praps i do. Praps the central helix part of the photon is ultimately lost (stretched & ultimately becoming a straight line instead of a helix), leaving just the emanating photaenos. Putting it another way, the long straight helix might hav lots of energy but not of a kind that manifests in our quantum world (ie praps we karnt see or feel such a photon)(ie once the frequency falls below a certain level the photon bekums invizible etc).
crawler
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:50 pm

Crawler
In effect Ranzan explains how the subquantum affects the quantum world. Mass (quantum) is annihilated in blackholes. And mass is created in certain zones in each cosmic cell. So conservation laws are broken in both zones, but overall we hav a conservation of sorts (at least in the long term).


It's a wonderful theory, however we have no irrefutable evidence that mass is annihilated in black holes or that black holes even exist. Even if they did exist we would still have no evidence that mass is actually annihilated violating the conservation of energy which is doubtful. It would seem to be one layer of conjecture piled onto the next built on a foundation of quicksand in my opinion.

Personally, I believe this kind of thinking is an artifact from the dark ages of creationism where we could not imagine something without a beginning or an end. Thus our mind tends to start fabricating imaginary instances for this to happen despite the facts show otherwise. Long ago mankind used to believe everything was created for reasons we could not understand now most believe nothing is created or destroyed only transformed... you see were making progress.

It's like when people say they believe in the conservation of energy then the moment they see something they don't understand they say it must magically violate the conservation of energy. So which is it?, do they believe in the conservation of energy or do they not because they can't have it both ways. This is why critical thinking and metacognition are so important to promote a healthy and constructive mind.

I like Albert Einsteins thoughts on these matters... "if you cannot explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough".
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby crawler » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:03 pm

Electrodynamic wrote:Crawler
In effect Ranzan explains how the subquantum affects the quantum world. Mass (quantum) is annihilated in blackholes. And mass is created in certain zones in each cosmic cell. So conservation laws are broken in both zones, but overall we hav a conservation of sorts (at least in the long term).


It's a wonderful theory, however we have no irrefutable evidence that mass is annihilated in black holes or that black holes even exist. Even if they did exist we would still have no evidence that mass is actually annihilated violating the conservation of energy which is doubtful. It would seem to be one layer of conjecture piled onto the next built on a foundation of quicksand in my opinion.

Personally, I believe this kind of thinking is an artifact from the dark ages of creationism where we could not imagine something without a beginning or an end. Thus our mind tends to start fabricating imaginary instances for this to happen despite the facts show otherwise. Long ago mankind used to believe everything was created for reasons we could not understand now most believe nothing is created or destroyed only transformed... you see were making progress.

It's like when people say they believe in the conservation of energy then the moment they see something they don't understand they say it must magically violate the conservation of energy. So which is it?, do they believe in the conservation of energy or do they not because they can't have it both ways. This is why critical thinking and metacognition are so important to promote a healthy and constructive mind.

I like Albert Einsteins thoughts on these matters... "if you cannot explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough".
Yes, conservation of energy merely means that every action has an equal reaction. But praps Newton duznt apply at the interaction of the quantum world with the subquantum world, when viewed by quantum beings.

The annihilation of mass etc iznt hard to swallow if u recognize that everything we see & feel in this quantum world iz a process. Therefore all annihilation iz a soft annihilation (eg mass)(eg aether). Yes a transformation if u like. The annihilation of praether, the fundamental essence, would be a hard annihilation (ie probly impossible).

Re evidence for the annihilation of mass in a BH. Here on Earth we hav been able to convert confined photons to free photons uzing atomic fission. Here we might possibly hav converted some mass to energy (but praps knot). In a BH i would say that we are talking about converting free photons to nothing, ie annihilating mass plus annihilating the energy. Its a big ask.

Or we can believe that once there woz nothing, & then it exploded.

Ranzan's DSSU theorys involve two major processes in each cosmic cell, (1) getting something from nothing (in one zone), & (2) getting nothing from something (in another zone)(ie in BHs).
crawler
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:03 pm

Crawler
Re evidence for the annihilation of mass in a BH. Here on Earth we hav been able to convert confined photons to free photons uzing atomic fission. Here we might possibly hav converted some mass to energy (but praps knot). In a BH i would say that we are talking about converting free photons to nothing, ie annihilating mass plus annihilating the energy. Its a big ask.


A more reasonable explanation may be that because everything seems to be buzzing around at the speed of light Energy is not a problem. I don't think most people can rationalize what the speed of light means with respect to kinetic energy. Annihilating mass isn't necessary to liberate horrific amounts of energy, transformation and translation is however.

Take Earth's little asteroid problem and the fact that we have had more than a few close calls in the last year with more to come. Most people think it's just a rock as big as a few city blocks which isn't a big deal. However what they cannot rationalize is the concept of Energy relating to motion which in our asteroid problem is around 40 to 60,000 miles per hour. Look at what happened when a puny little jet travelling at a lethargic 500 mph hit the world trade center. Now imagine a jet as big as a few city blocks travelling at not 500 mph but 60,000 mph and that's a very big problem. Most people cannot even begin to wrap there mind around what this amount of Energy represents or what it could do. It makes most of our other problems seem trivial by comparison in my opinion.
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby crawler » Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:57 pm

Electrodynamic wrote:Crawler
Re evidence for the annihilation of mass in a BH. Here on Earth we hav been able to convert confined photons to free photons uzing atomic fission. Here we might possibly hav converted some mass to energy (but praps knot). In a BH i would say that we are talking about converting free photons to nothing, ie annihilating mass plus annihilating the energy. Its a big ask.
A more reasonable explanation may be that because everything seems to be buzzing around at the speed of light Energy is not a problem. I don't think most people can rationalize what the speed of light means with respect to kinetic energy. Annihilating mass isn't necessary to liberate horrific amounts of energy, transformation and translation is however.

Take Earth's little asteroid problem and the fact that we have had more than a few close calls in the last year with more to come. Most people think it's just a rock as big as a few city blocks which isn't a big deal. However what they cannot rationalize is the concept of Energy relating to motion which in our asteroid problem is around 40 to 60,000 miles per hour. Look at what happened when a puny little jet travelling at a lethargic 500 mph hit the world trade center. Now imagine a jet as big as a few city blocks travelling at not 500 mph but 60,000 mph and that's a very big problem. Most people cannot even begin to wrap there mind around what this amount of Energy represents or what it could do. It makes most of our other problems seem trivial by comparison in my opinion.
In a sense there are 2 kinds of energy. There is the simple kinetic energy ~potential energy kind, which is merely a bit of math based on action equals reaction & force by distance etc (ie math-energy). Then there is the more complex intrinsic kind of energy which needs a special kind of math (which we karnt yet do koz we dont know what kind of physics is involved)(we dont know the forces & the distances)(intrinsic-energy).

But then in about 1900 scientists decided to apply math-energy protocols to calculate intrinsic-energy. And Einstein joined in in 1905 or 7 or something. Ives correctly pointed out that Einstein's method was false koz it consisted of a circular reasoning. U karnt uze skoolkid math-energy to calculate intrinsic-energy, u at least need empirical evidence & empirical numbers to make a proper model, not just some stupid naive Einsteinian thortX involving a silly pair of emitted photons.

Hencely E=mcc is allmost certainly false. When a confined photon (eg electron) bekums free the mass reduces by a large factor, lets say one billion (Williamson)(Jeans). But nuclear fission karnt annihilate a photon, it merely changes it from being confined to being free (plus it might split a photon into being two)(plus it might change a photon's wavelength).

Here i need to point out that there are at least 3 kinds of mass. There is ordinary static mass (eg as in an electron). And there is photonic mass (where the photon is propagating at c kmps). And there is photaenoic mass (where the photaeno is propagating at c or at times much more than c). All mass is due to the annihilation of aether, more specifically it is due to the acceleration of aether flowing into matter where the aether is annihilated. This manifests in thems 3 different way.

In the static case the aether inflow streamlines converge to a point in three dimensions which givs a 1/RR gravity. In the non-static cases the inflow streamlines converge to a line in two dimensions giving a 1/R kind of gravity mass inertia etc.

The roll of the speed c kmps or much more than c is a problem for me, koz we know that gravity travels at more than 20 billion c kmps (Van Flandern). Hencely the roll of that there c kmps shouldnt be a giant factor. Still thinking. That there 20 billion c is the speed of a shockwave in the aether, ie the speed of a gravity wave. Aktually its more of a pulse than a wave. Aktually its a back&forth reverberation. The aether being massless karnt make a quantum force in our world, but what it duz is it transfers force tween masses. Thusly a say isolated electron has mass (it annihilates aether) but has zero inertia koz inertia kan only exist if there is nearby mass.

So in a sense there might be some truth that the mass (inertia aktually) of a thing depends on the presence of all of the other things in the universe (but in praktice limited by the finite speed of gravity).

However we karnt measure mass, what we allways measure is inertia or inertial mass if u like. Just some thorts. This stuff affects allmost all discussion of allmost everything on this board.
crawler
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:24 pm

Crawler
However we karnt measure mass, what we allways measure is inertia or inertial mass if u like. Just some thorts. This stuff affects allmost all discussion of allmost everything on this board.


I have an honest question and I mean no malice in it... why do you talk like this?. "karnt measure mass", "allways measure" or "Just some thorts". What is this exactly and why would you do it?. Obviously you understand the English language and you also understand physics more so than most so why this language?.

From my studies of psychology I would suspect it is a rejection of normalcy and I understand that there is nothing normal about normal. I reject normal as well because it seems to look like denial and insanity from almost any reasonable and logical perspective. I just cannot wrap my mind around what it is your trying to accomplish by doing this, to what end?.
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

Unread postby neilwilkes » Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:36 am

nick c wrote:The best explanation I have seen, Don Scott on Olber's Paradox:
http://electric-cosmos.org/Olber.pdf


And it is exactly right.
The whole supposed paradox is based entirely on the idea that our eyes see everything that is there and they simply don't. The more powerful the telescope the more we see that everywhere has stars. We just do not see them ourselves.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

PreviousNext

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest