Argument by analogy

[Catastrophe]

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

Think what CMBR stands for. Is R = radiation?

Is radiation static? Not in my opinion (knowledge).

Where did I ever say radiation (emr such as light) was static?

Are you referring to my correspondence with Classical Motion?

Best ask him questions like that. My position is clear.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Is a disconnected capacitor field static?

I have no idea of the relevance?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

A light bulb is still. The radiation from it is moving. The light bulb is still.

The CMB is still. The radiation from it is moving. The CMB is still

 

[Classical Motion]

Cat, tap the cap across bat terminals. The cap will hold a “static” charge. A charged cap.

Old CRTs had a static charge, which could be felt with a charged balloon.

 

[Catastrophe]

A light bulb is still. The radiation from it is moving. The light bulb is still.

The CMB is still. The radiation from it is moving. The CMB is still

That is only one example. Are you suggesting "one therefore all"? I hope not.

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

If the source of the CMBR is not moving, it will be the only thing ever detected that is not moving.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, why are you ignoring my post #57?

Page 3 - Argument by analogy

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

If the source of the CMBR is not moving, it will be the only thing ever detected that is not moving.

Yes. I agree. But who knows what the source is? Not a singularity.

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe it to be relatively local. Solar wind at great distance. Galactic perhaps. Not first light.

Maybe.

 

[Gibsense]

The CMB is still. The radiation from it is moving. The CMB is still

OK, I see the problem. I should say the map drawn by the Cosmic Microwaves in the background is still. The CMB is radiation, not the map drawn. I am too used to thinking of the CMB as an object. Sorry about that.

Anyway the CMB map defines stationary.

 

[Classical Motion]

Our visual bandwidth is very large. Frequency and wavelength wise. Very wide with range.

The UV and X-ray is even wider. And gamma wider than those. Billions of more colors.

What color was first light? How many colors did it have? Much higher and broader than gamma?

Where did all that bandwidth go when they shifted down? With our sat shifts…...the whole spectrum shifts with it. The bandwidth doesn’t shrink when it shifts.

Compared to most space EM, the CMBR is really skinny. And a spiky bandwidth. Not a wide broad bandwidth. Like light and UV-x-ray.

And if first light came from quirks, the emission would be much higher the gamma. With a much higher bandwidth.

Just another maybe.

 

[Gibsense]

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?

Post 57 is not ignored I answered it. Bill explained what I meant. At least I thought I had.

I also have a patent to my name which was claimed by what is now Reckitt Benckiser as I was employed by them at the time - is this what you meant?

 

[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.

Yes Sir, explanation herewith:

Your science colleagues cannot just accept the radiation known as static (as per tvs) they have to separate the spurious radiation to establish the 'first light' CMB radiation. I likened it to your insects, bugs and flying fish - whatever. I clearly misjudged your intent.

My 4 years of study was a very wide range of subjects from practice at handling radioisotopes to inspecting meat in an abattoir. A long course for which I was entered for a national prize (I didn't get it!)

 

[Catastrophe]

Post 57 is not ignored I answered it. Bill explained what I meant. At least I thought I had.

I also have a patent to my name which was claimed by what is now Reckitt Benckiser as I was employed by them at the time - is this what you meant?

I actually took out the patents in my name but did assign them. I used to visit RB (also when just R) but not in the last 35-40 years. I won't say more in case we recognise each other!!! But perhaps you are more recent, in which case, no possibility.

Is this what you mean?

He is referring to all of the foreground radiation that must be subtracted from an image before they can see CMBR.

I would say that the CMBR includes the radiation portrayed. If it originated long ago, we see it as it is getting here now, as with all radiation (see above) it is dynamic. Light (any emr) certainly is not static.

The cosmic microwave background is a snapshot of the oldest light in our universe, from when the cosmos was just 380,000 years old.

It can still be seen, though at modified wavelengths, vide:

• Astronomers study the CMB to learn about the universe's origins, how galaxies formed, and what happened in the first moments of the Big Bang.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

Each photon of the CMBR was emitted by an electron rejoining an atom at the point when the universe suddenly became clear. This happened at 280,000 years after the Big Bang. Every spot in the universe emitted a photon. There was no preferred source nor preferred direction of emission. It happened everywhere at once and is currently everywhere at once. The "source" of the CMBR is everywhere in the universe all at the same time. So, no, the CMBR source does not move, thus may be considered "static".

 

[Classical Motion]

A snapshot?

 

[Classical Motion]

If the CMBR is from electron bonding, then the color should be skinny. And not broadband. This would fit the BB and current theories. If you favor such.

 

[Classical Motion]

Pardon my ignorance. I was under the impression that the CMBR was the result of quirks and other sub-particles condensing into today’s matter. Which would be a huge cluster of flux with a large bandwidth. I assume.

For me, the CMBR spectrum is much more quantum, and related to today’s atomic reactions, not pre-atomic reactions. And I suspect much more local.

But I am certainly not an expert. At any of it.

 

[Catastrophe]

Each photon of the CMBR was emitted by an electron rejoining an atom at the point where the universe suddenly became clear. This happened at 280,000 years after the Big Bang. Every spot in the universe emitted a photon. There was no preferred source nor preferred direction of emission. It happened everywhere at once and is currently everywhere at once. The "source" of the CMBR is everywhere in the universe all at the same time. So, no, the CMBR source does not move, thus may be considered "static".

The source (CMB) may be static, but the radiation (CMBR) certainly is not. Thus the radiation we see from the CMB is dynamic. If we can still see the CMBR, then photons must still be arriving. Photons you describe
(Every spot in the universe emitted a photon) must still be travelling here, unless you suggest that photons can remain stationary. How otherwise would you say that the CMB was not moving in time. Are you suggesting that the photons' only movement is due to expansion? I don't understand your explanation, but am willing to try.

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

And that first light would not have been a flash. For so far it's lasted several decades.

 

[Catastrophe]

And that first light would not have been a flash. For so far it's lasted several decades.

Then whilst the CMB might be static (does anyone know?) the photons are still arriving i.e., light or consequent associated radiation, so our view is dynamic. Radiation has been arriving as long as we have been seeing.

Gibsense posted above:

A light bulb is still. The radiation from it is moving. The light bulb is still.

I accept that we see the light bulb is "still", but it is/was travelling through spacetime, but I don't want to push this complication. However, we see this light coming from the bulb is a dynamic event.


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Pardon my ignorance. I was under the impression that the CMBR was the result of quirks and other sub-particles condensing into today’s matter. Which would be a huge cluster of flux with a large bandwidth. I assume.

For me, the CMBR spectrum is much more quantum, and related to today’s atomic reactions, not pre-atomic reactions. And I suspect much more local.

But I am certainly not an expert. At any of it.

CMBR (r = radiation) is radiation (light and associated radiation) which has traveled from:

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) originated approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe cooled enough for electrons and protons to combine into hydrogen atoms, allowing light to travel freely"

"Light is made up of different wavelengths, meaning that different colors of light correspond to different distances between wave peaks, with the visible spectrum ranging from the short wavelengths of violet to the long wavelengths of red light."

I cannot see any relevance between this and my understanding of a spectrum:
"CMBR spectrum is much more quantum, and related to today’s atomic reactions, not pre-atomic reactions.". Can anyone explain?

Cat

 

[billslugg]

Photons you describe
(Every spot in the universe emitted a photon) must still be travelling here, unless you suggest that photons can remain stationary.

This is an incomplete sentence, can't understand what you are getting at.

 

[Classical Motion]

The only reason our star bulbs remain still, is because they are so far away. And because their radiation is emitted radially, their motion is even harder to detect. At distance. Little change in intensity.

A spectrum is emitted via multiple emitters with multiple wavelengths. A plasma.

Quantum emissions are selected and set from atomic dimensions. These are quantum because of atomic structure and resonance. Spikes. Not broadband. Emission and absorption lines. Slots.

And please remember, what we know about chemistry is earth gravity chemistry.

Space chemistry will be very different. Much different than Sol’s plasma chemistry too.

Earth chemistry is very conditional and special. Very pampered.

 

[Gibsense]

The conversation seems to verge on the ridiculous. I have made mistakes and others. Bill has not. However, the discussion is about whether or not anything within the universe can be considered not moving. That is, stationary. I contend that the answer is yes, but one has to take care of the use of one's words.

If we average all the movement in the universe = stationary (to be clear, I am not talking envelopes)

Look at the maps of the universe, the voids, the fungal-like filaments of galaxies (to be clear I am not talking mushrooms)

Measure the wavelength of the first light in all directions; it is almost the same but for a slight variation, indicating movement in a particular direction. So let's do what this thread is about: Argument by Analogy (I mean discussion of course not anger)

Imagine city streets at night with nothing moving (a UK city) except a few cars crawling slowly heading for a ferry. Relativity might suggest that the city buildings are moving relative to the cars, which, of course, they are, but once we define the city as 'everything', logic would suggest it is the cars that move, and the city streets are stationary. (I know that ferries move)

When I was a boy, Science discussed this issue endlessly, including spinning water in a bucket. It showed that the surface of the water was depressed toward the centre - so how did it know it was spinning if there was no such thing as static (Oh no, not again!) Since then, most old fogies have retired ((I mean disengaged, not 'gone to sleep') ( by 'gone to sleep' I didn't mean died) (most have died actually (not gone to sleep)) = universe in a nutshell (its an analogy)

If a future AI viewed my conversation, it would have decided to pat me on the back and keep me in a padded room. (A room with padding, not one flattened by feet)

I am told my sense of humour is odd (even)