Argument by analogy

[Gibsense]

Gibsense, we must, as always, watch the semantics.

A background can be construed as static, but we are discussing cosmic microwave radiation, which is not static.

Can a background be static when it is composed of radiation moving at the speed of light?

If we discussed the cosmic background radiation, would this ease matters between us?

Quite right! I must pay more attention!
Re Background. The radiation of the CMB is of course everywhere. Assuming the universe is spherical the photons are zipping around as they have been for around 13.8 billion years. Presumably many have decohered as they encountered matter

If this makes any sense it occurs to me as I type that some may encounter a virtual particle in the brief period of its existence. Presumably, that would mess up their annihilation procedure (?).

Back to the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
Scroll down and you get - The cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides a snapshot of a largely isotropic and homogeneous universe. The largest scale feature of the CMB is the dipole anisotropy; it is typically subtracted from maps due to its large amplitude. The standard interpretation of the dipole is that it is due to the Doppler effect caused by the motion of the solar system with respect to the CMB rest-frame.

 

[Gibsense]

Is it safe to assume that we are always moving, and that what we see is always moving? If that is true then a static condition could not exist, whether we can measure it or not. Position and intensity and frequency would always be changing. Just like radio static.



A fixed state of change. A static of change.

I would contend that the 'natural' state of matter is approximately 'at rest' - stationary - but that gradual differences result in clumping and evolution will cause movement

 

[Catastrophe]

The radiation of the CMB is of course everywhere.

This does not mean that the radiation is static.

Photons do not stop moving because they are everywhere.
They would not get everywhere if they were static.
You state that "radiation is of course everywhere". If static, how does radiation get everywhere?

Light from the Sun pervades our Solar System, but it does not mean that all photons and other radiation become stationary = static. Otherwise light would not move from the Sun. Not radiate.

Radiation is not static, however far it reaches.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Radiation is not static, however far it reaches.

Yes, of course, I agree. Why would you think otherwise?
Guessing: Maybe you believe that the CMB "at rest" means the radiation should be at rest. This is not true although I appreciate why this could be a confusing issue. Sorry if I guess wrong.
The light from a vase of flowers on top of your table is moving (at c) but the vase is not

 

[Catastrophe]

I am aware of the following, but I take serious issue with it.

Google Search

meaning it is leftover radiation from the early universe

Gibsense, in #54 you state "Yes, of course, I agree. Why would you think otherwise?" in relation to my statement "Radiation is not static, however far it reaches".

Yet you say you agree with the above " meaning it is leftover radiation from the early universe".

The "it", of course, referring to CMB. As I suggested, I believe the problem is semantic, being confusion between "background" and "radiation". I hold that a background can be dynamic as well as static.
For example, you might have a commentator in the foreground and tens or thousands of deer, or insects, or cars or whatever moving in the distant background. Constituting the background.

Thus I believe that the CMB, consisting of moving radiation, is not static.

Do you disagree with that reasoning? If so, how?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

et you say you agree with the above " meaning it is leftover radiation from the early universe".

The "it", of course, referring to CMB. As I suggested, I believe the problem is semantic, being confusion between "background" and "radiation". I hold that a background can be dynamic as well as static.
For example, you might have a commentator in the foreground and tens or thousands of deer, or insects, or cars or whatever moving in the distant background. Constituting the background.

Thus I believe that the CMB, consisting of moving radiation, is not static.

Do you disagree with that reasoning? If so, how?

I do not disagree with the reasoning. Science deducts the deer insects and cars or whatever to leave CMB radiation. The CMB microwave radiation is whizzing around, and we can see it. Over 13.8 billion years, the wavelength has stretched to microwave all at very nearly the same length

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense,

As a scientist myself (B.Sc. Hons,, published scientific author (Marcel Dekker and patent holder) I fail to see how "science deducts the deer insects and cars or whatever". I would appreciate your explanation.

For example, you might have a commentator in the foreground and tens or thousands of deer, or insects, or cars or whatever moving in the distant background. Constituting the background.

This states quite clearly that a foreground speaker (or any other foreground) may be in front of a background consisting of (e.g.,) deer, insects, cars, aeroplanes, clouds, or any of thousands, or millions, of other moving (=dynamic) people or objects. This is simple English language, not science.

What further explanation do you need?

Cat

 

[billslugg]

He is referring to all of the foreground radiation that must be subtracted from an image before they can see CMBR. It is not in the Earth's atmosphere but things like the Milky Way.

 

[Catastrophe]

He is referring to all of the foreground radiation that must be subtracted from an image before they can see CMBR. It is not in the Earth's atmosphere but things like the Milky Way.

How does this make CMBR a static background?

Cat

 

[billslugg]

CMBR is the background that's left, after we take all the stars and galaxies out of the image.

 

[Catastrophe]

CMBR is the background that's left, after we take all the stars and galaxies out of the image.

That is not my point.

My point is that a background does not have to be static. CMBR is not static.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

See my post #57:

This states quite clearly that a foreground speaker (or any other foreground) may be in front of a background consisting of (e.g.,) deer, insects, cars, aeroplanes, clouds, or any of thousands, or millions, of other moving (=dynamic) people or objects. This is simple English language, not science.

Google "Can a background move?"

Yes, a background can move, especially in digital design and animation, where it's often referred to as an "animated background" or "motion background" - meaning it has visual elements that change over time, creating the effect of movement; this can be achieved using software like Adobe After Effects to add dynamic elements like scrolling patterns, transitions, or parallax effects to a background image.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

A background of (light) radiation consists of a succession of photons, not frozen photons, which would be static. In principle, it is the same as moving deer, etc., etc., etc..

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

There are moving but not the way you think they are. They are only moving half the time. During the other half, they are not moving.

 

[Catastrophe]

There are moving but not the way you think they are. They are only moving half the time. During the other half, they are not moving.

This is playing with semantics.

Are they, then, half moving and/or half static?

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

50% of a non relativistic photon is real, and the other 50% is imaginary. With relative motion, ONLY the imaginary part changes duration and length, with a change in distance. The real part remains a constant duration and length.

A photon is a ratio of presence and non presence. Only the non present can shift with motion.

 

[Catastrophe]

50% of a non relativistic photon is real, and the other 50% is imaginary. With relative motion, ONLY the imaginary part changes duration and length, with a change in distance. The real part remains a constant duration and length.

A photon is a ratio of presence and non presence. Only the non present can shift with motion.

So how would you describe CMBR ? static, dynamic or what?

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe that anything physical, field or matter, is in a state of perpetual motion.

 

[Catastrophe]

I believe that anything physical, field or matter, is in a state of perpetual motion.

So the answer is dynamic.


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Google gives:

Yes, light is dynamic because it's always moving. Dynamic lighting is a term that describes light that changes in response to environmental changes.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

I don't understand what is meant by "the CMBR is static"?
Static in what sense? Movement? Changes? What?

 

[Classical Motion]

Good question. Static can have many contexts.

 

[Classical Motion]

Is a disconnected capacitor field static?

 

[Classical Motion]

The fields have static intensity and static pattern, but those fields are still moving.

 

[Classical Motion]

The "static" of radio static, is it's direction.