Space roar: NASA detected the loudest sound in the universe, but what is it?

[Admin]

The space roar, which was detected by NASA's ARCADE mission in 2006, makes space six-times louder than anyone was expecting — have we finally found the cause?

Space roar: NASA detected the loudest sound in the universe, but what is it? : Read more

 

[ARTGLICK]

Ah, space hype. Accuracy gives way to click bait. 23 miles is hardly "outer space" by any definition, and radio waves are hardly "sound" by any definition. But it makes for good click bait. Right up there with "God Particle" for the Higgs and "Theory of Everything" for the UFT. Well done.

 

[Fjet2020]

The answer is easy. Do ALL of the above. You have an instrument ready to go again. Use it! Develop new ones. Why be limited? Put an entrepreneur in charge. We get stuff done!

 

[Jabbadonut]

The space roar, which was detected by NASA's ARCADE mission in 2006, makes space six-times louder than anyone was expecting — have we finally found the cause?

Space roar: NASA detected the loudest sound in the universe, but what is it? : Read more

Uh . . . sorry . . . didn't mean for that fart to be so big . . . just don't inhale for a bit . . .

 

[Xinhang Shen]

In the article, there is an interesting fact that "distant light becomes radio waves as it loses energy over distance" which tells us that interstellar vacuum space is not empty but filled up with a medium to absorb the lost energy from the light. This medium is called aether - a fluid medium for propagating light and other electromagnetic waves, which fills up the entire visible space around us. This is another evidence of the existence of aether. Just as the speed of sound is isotropic only relative to local air, the speed of light is isotropic only relative to local aether. Thus, the existence of aether as an evidence to disproves Einstein's special relativity is as strong as the evidence to disprove special relativity: the universally synchronized time shown by all the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites is absolute, not relative as claimed by special relativity which tells us that clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them. For more details disproving special relativity, please see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity

The disproof of special relativity and the restore of the absolute time and the 3D space directly deny the Big Bang theory, and thus, all efforts based on these wrong theories are waste of money and time.

 

[Jabbadonut]

In the article, there is an interesting fact that "distant light becomes radio waves as it loses energy over distance" which tells us that interstellar vacuum space is not empty but filled up with a medium to absorb the lost energy from the light. This medium is called aether - a fluid medium for propagating light and other electromagnetic waves, which fills up the entire visible space around us. This is another evidence of the existence of aether. Just as the speed of sound is isotropic only relative to local air, the speed of light is isotropic only relative to local aether. Thus, the existence of aether as an evidence to disproves Einstein's special relativity is as strong as the evidence to disprove special relativity: the universally synchronized time shown by all the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites is absolute, not relative as claimed by special relativity which tells us that clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them. For more details disproving special relativity, please see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity

The disproof of special relativity and the restore of the absolute time and the 3D space directly deny the Big Bang theory, and thus, all efforts based on these wrong theories are waste of money and time.

How does this deny the Big Bang Theory?

 

[Xinhang Shen]

How does this deny the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang theory is based on Einstein's relativity.

 

[Jabbadonut]

The Big Bang theory is based on Einstein's relativity.

You'll have to be more specific as to why this theory regarding the nature of space conflicts with Einstein. The GENERAL theory of relativity is what the Big Bang theory is based upon, not the Special Theory. https://www.livescience.com/65700-big-bang-theory.html

 

[Xinhang Shen]

You'll have to be more specific as to why this theory regarding the nature of space conflicts with Einstein. The GENERAL theory of relativity is what the Big Bang theory is based upon, not the Special Theory. https://www.livescience.com/65700-big-bang-theory.html

All relativity theories are based on relativistic spacetime which has been disproved because time is absolute.

 

[Jabbadonut]

All relativity theories are based on relativistic spacetime which has been disproved because time is absolute.

Please cite a source that says "time is absolute." Thanks. (haven't heard that before)

 

[Xinhang Shen]

Please cite a source that says "time is absolute." Thanks. (haven't heard that before)

(PDF) Challenge to the Special Theory of Relativity

PDF | This paper finds that the time of the special theory of relativity (STR) is no longer the physical time measured by physical clocks. In fact, a... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297528348_Clock_Time_Is_Absolute_and_Universal

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

This is a decade old data that has been cited 18 times, but not by the large data integrations such as Planck 2018 or BOSS 2020. It isn't hindering cosmic background spectra analysis since the ARCADE frequency bands of 3-90 GHz [ https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/pubs/arc2_apj_interp_2011.pdf ] mostly overlap the Planck data of 30 - 857 GHz [ https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa33880-18.pdf ].

If you look at the data calibration of the lower frequency bands in Planck they are complicated by "polarized foregrounds". Much of the ARCADE survey region [ https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/arcade_balloon.html ] is meticulously masked away due to various sources including gas and dust emission [ https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.12875.pdf ], while the ARCADE analysis [1st link] is extrapolated between models, data and frequencies in the same way that Planck did originally.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

In the article, there is an interesting fact that "distant light becomes radio waves as it loses energy over distance" which tells us that interstellar vacuum space is not empty but filled up with a medium to absorb the lost energy from the light. This medium is called aether ...

The disproof of special relativity and the restore of the absolute time and the 3D space directly deny the Big Bang theory, ...

Your first claim is wrong, which you then take as a basis to introduce baseless pseudoscience and self promotion.

The reason cosmic background radiation light redshift into radio wavelengths is due to space expansion, a space expansion which indicates a big bang and is based on general relativity [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background ]. Relativistic cosmology explain all what we see on large scales and alternative physics were rejected a century ago by direct observation [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Origins_and_significance ].

The essay journal were you published your erroneous notions - a waste of time and money - is not indexed in the Journal Citation Reports and has no citation score. But some indexation places still has it and some has had it which history reveal what looks like a predatory, self citation driven journal [ https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29201&tip=sid&clean=0 ]. What readers of science sites expect - besides not being subjected to self interest spam - is peer reviewed published papers as references.

 

[Jabbadonut]

Thank you Mr. Larsson. You've cleared away the confusion I was having.

 

[slicksister]

Is there any way to rule out synchrotron radioation from charged particles from the sun's solar wind interacting with the earth's magnetic field? Couldn't the radiation be coming from the van allen belts that surround the earth? Wouldn't that look like a diffuse, widely distributed radio source?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

It is interesting to me that we have several measurements that seem to say that things we expect to not be there at great distances from us are "there". The most obvious are the images from Hubble and now Webb that seem to show galaxies in much more mature states of evolution occur at much greater distances than predicted before they were sited. There is also the Cosmic Micowave Background Radiation which is everywhere and is currently assumed to be from a uniform cosmological event involving the cooling of hydrogen ions to the point that the condensed to neutral atoms and stopped absorbing photons so that they can start their trips toward Earth. And, now there is some indication that there MAY be much more in the way of distant sources of even lower photon/radio wave energy than "expected".

All of this brings to mind the reasoning that the universe "cannot" be infinite because that would make the sky uniformly bright in the background, instead of dark. These findings seem to suggest that the sky is uniformly lit, although dim, and shifted to longer wavelengths by expansion so that we do not see it as "white light".

So, I keep getting the impression that the actually "observable" universe could well be larger than what the BBT currently predicts. But, it seems like we would need to be able to get instruments outside our own galaxy to be able to address enough of the uncertainties to be able to really falsify the BBT interpretation of everything.