IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM   #1121
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

I'm trying to understand why my radio transmitters behave the way they do.

I was playing guitar with a wireless unit a county fair once, and I had to switch to a cable, because I was getting signals from other side of the fair grounds.

Shouldn't my receiver have been unable to get that signal, if my closer signal was opaque?
I already explained why your radio isn't opaque. It's too small, the signal can diffract around it.

Sit inside a Faraday cage, and that won't be a problem.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:42 PM   #1122
Mike Helland
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I already explained why your radio isn't opaque. It's too small, the signal can diffract around it.

Sit inside a Faraday cage, and that won't be a problem.
Ok.

So if the CMB signal was small enough, we should be able to get radio signals that are more powerful than it. Right?

Do you have any examples of radio signals from space in the same frequency band as the CMB that aren't the CMB?

If this the CMB is indeed opaque, that would imply it's blocking our view of a lot of galaxies.

But it wouldn't block all, only those whose light has redshifted all the way into the microwave band.

Right?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:45 PM   #1123
Reformed Offlian
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 191
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Shouldn't my receiver have been unable to get that signal, if my closer signal was opaque?

A signal isn't opaque. Perhaps that's what's confusing you here. When people talk about the CMB being a blackbody, they mean that whatever emitted it was a blackbody, not the microwaves themselves.
Reformed Offlian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:47 PM   #1124
Mike Helland
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
A signal isn't opaque. Perhaps that's what's confusing you here. When people talk about the CMB being a blackbody, they mean that whatever emitted it was a blackbody, not the microwaves themselves.
Alrighty.

If I understand that right...

... in that case, if the microwaves are emitted by photons or a quantum foam of some kind, there is no actual body and therefor no opacity to deal with.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:51 PM   #1125
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,513
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

I'm trying to understand why my radio transmitters behave the way they do.

I was playing guitar with a wireless unit a county fair once, and I had to switch to a cable, because I was getting signals from other side of the fair grounds.

Shouldn't my receiver have been unable to get that signal, if my closer signal was opaque?
Your closer signal is a point source and not a black body. The CMB is not a point source, and is a black body. Your argument from analogy is failing. As they do.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:56 PM   #1126
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

So if the CMB signal was small enough, we should be able to get radio signals that are more powerful than it. Right?
Small in terms of physical dimensions. But how small do you think it is? It's obviously bigger than the earth. And it's in all directions. Diffracting around the CMB isn't an option.

Quote:
Do you have any examples of radio signals from space in the same frequency band as the CMB that aren't the CMB?
Yes.

Quote:
If this the CMB is indeed opaque, that would imply it's blocking our view of a lot of galaxies.
Unless it's behind them, in which case it wouldn't.

Quote:
But it wouldn't block all, only those whose light has redshifted all the way into the microwave band.

Right?
It doesn't matter if some galaxies would be visible through the CMB. It suffices that there are sources (see the link) which WOULD be blocked by the CMB, if it were in front of those sources. It doesn't block those sources. Therefore, it is behind those sources.

This is really basic stuff, and if you knew more about astronomy and physics you would know it already. But you don't. You know so little. But you aren't actually trying to learn.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:58 PM   #1127
Reformed Offlian
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 191
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Alrighty.

If I understand that right...

... in that case, if the microwaves are emitted by photons or a quantum foam of some kind, there is no actual body and therefor no opacity to deal with.
Sure. Or maybe it's CMB gremlins messing with our telescopes. If it's magic, then it's not physics, and there's no physics to deal with. Problem "solved". Makes about as much sense as saying that quantum foam did it.
Reformed Offlian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:00 PM   #1128
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Alrighty.

If I understand that right...

... in that case, if the microwaves are emitted by photons or a quantum foam of some kind, there is no actual body and therefor no opacity to deal with.
Sure. If magic exists, then anything is possible.

I told you that you were trying to solve a small problem by introducing a big one. You keep trying to make those problems even bigger.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:13 PM   #1129
Mike Helland
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It suffices that there are sources (see the link) which WOULD be blocked by the CMB, if it were in front of those sources. It doesn't block those sources. Therefore, it is behind those sources.
Thanks for saying there was a link, I missed it the first time (it was underlined but the same color as the text).

But the radio waves are a different frequency than the microwaves.

My question should probably be, do we detect EM signals of galaxies in the same frequency range as we detect the CMB?

You're saying the source of the CMB, if it were local, would block radio signals. But if the CMB photons were emitted by other photons or space itself, the source would be transparent and nothing would be blocked.

As for solving a small problem or a big problem, that's a subjective value judgement. In my mind "crisis" denotes a big problem, which is how the state of cosmology is described today.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:15 PM   #1130
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,280
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
In my mind "crisis" denotes a big problem, which is how the state of cosmology is described today.
On top of what you don't know about physics you also don't understand headlines.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:23 PM   #1131
Mike Helland
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
On top of what you don't know about physics you also don't understand headlines.
I had came up with this hypothesis about 15 years ago.

In that time, nothing has really gone well for the big bang theory.

In the past three years, it's become clear the standard model is deeply flawed.

You can live in the past if you want.

The Webb telescope should tell us whether the universe is much older and larger than we think. If it doesn't, then my idea is wrong.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:26 PM   #1132
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,513
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
In my mind "crisis" denotes a big problem, which is how the state of cosmology is described today.
Things are relative. Eating a banana exposes you to about 0.1 microsieverts of ionizing radiation. If your next banana exposed you to 1.0 microsieverts of ionizing radiation, that would be a *huge* crisis in terms of that banana. The overall impact on you from this "crisis" would be infinitesimal, though.

https://xkcd.com/radiation/
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:27 PM   #1133
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,513
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The Webb telescope should tell us whether the universe is much older and larger than we think. If it doesn't, then my idea is wrong.
We already know your idea is wrong, though.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:36 PM   #1134
Mike Helland
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Things are relative. Eating a banana exposes you to about 0.1 microsieverts of ionizing radiation. If your next banana exposed you to 1.0 microsieverts of ionizing radiation, that would be a *huge* crisis in terms of that banana. The overall impact on you from this "crisis" would be infinitesimal, though.
Again, if cosmology doesn't have any fundamental problems in your mind, the Webb should corroborate the standard model.

The only thing the Big Bang theory really has going for it is predicting the CMB at the wrong temperature. Its anomalies and the inability to confirm the expansion rate of the universe cast doubt on that "success."

If the CMB is not what you claim it is, the anomalies and Hubble tension disappear.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:17 PM   #1135
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,126
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If the galaxy has moved, there are still photons from all around traveling through space redshifting. It happens to all photons, not just photons from our galaxy.
If the CMB is made up of photons from other galaxies, they are a much more distant source.

The Sun heats up the region around it such that, for instance, within the habitable zone you can have liquid water and comets will produce long tails. More distant regions are at lower temperatures.
You claim that the CMB is the temperature of our galaxy. Now you claim that it's light from distant galaxies.

Try calculating what that temperature should be.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:28 PM   #1136
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,126
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

I'm trying to understand why my radio transmitters behave the way they do.

I was playing guitar with a wireless unit a county fair once, and I had to switch to a cable, because I was getting signals from other side of the fair grounds.

Shouldn't my receiver have been unable to get that signal, if my closer signal was opaque?
It's not the signal that's opaque, it's the thing emitting the signal. And as has been pointed out several times, your radio antenna, while opaque to radio waves, is quite small, so it's not actually going to block a sizable number of radio waves to prevent them from being picked up further away.

It's not the photons that make up the CMB that are opaque to radio waves, it's whatever emitted them.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:37 PM   #1137
Mike Helland
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
If the CMB is made up of photons from other galaxies, they are a much more distant source.

The Sun heats up the region around it such that, for instance, within the habitable zone you can have liquid water and comets will produce long tails. More distant regions are at lower temperatures.
You claim that the CMB is the temperature of our galaxy. Now you claim that it's light from distant galaxies.

Try calculating what that temperature should be.
The question was, if photons from the CMB aren't from a distant ancient fireball, what are they from?

My suggestion was, as Eddington said, the temperature of space itself.

I also conjectured it could be modeled as photons emitting lower energy photons. I don't think that's that good of an idea.

But even if that's the case, the CMB would be made of photons that originated nearby, emitted from photons that originated far away.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:01 PM   #1138
Reformed Offlian
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 191
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The question was, if photons from the CMB aren't from a distant ancient fireball, what are they from?

My suggestion was, as Eddington said, the temperature of space itself.
And it was pointed out to you that this suggestion is wrong. Just because Eddington's space and the CMB have the same temperature doesn't make them the same thing.

Proposing that space has a temperature of 3K is neither a successful prediction, nor successful explanation, of the CMB.
Reformed Offlian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:47 PM   #1139
Mike Helland
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
And it was pointed out to you that this suggestion is wrong. Just because Eddington's space and the CMB have the same temperature doesn't make them the same thing.

Proposing that space has a temperature of 3K is neither a successful prediction, nor successful explanation, of the CMB.
How would we go about confirming Eddington's prediction then?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.