26 ms·

The mystery is why only one theory is accepted, while all other are left behind. For me, it's clear that Universe has no bounds, so objects after Visible Unive

The mystery is why only one theory is accepted, while all other are left behind. For me, it's clear that Universe has no bounds, so objects after Visible Universe is invisible because of geometry - we just cannot see objects which are sending less than 1 photon per hour per square meter, so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale, it's just aging of light, so background microwaves is just aged light from distant objects.

u-get-downvotes 7y ago
Enjoy your downvotes, you worthless piece of shit. And remember: it’s just that the software produces a “noisy signal” at first.
v_lisivka 7y ago
I have some followers^W folhaters here. :-)
magicalhippo 7y ago
> The mystery is why only one theory is accepted, while all other are left behind. Because the other theories we leave behind do not make predictions compatible with our measurements of the universe. > so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale What is this supposed to mean? > it's just aging of light You mean red-shifting or something else here? > so background microwaves is just aged light from distant objects How do you account for the CMB angular power spectrum[1][2] with your "tired light"? [1]: http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.html http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.htm... [2]: http://folk.uio.no/hke/AST5220/v11/AST5220_2_2011.pdf http://folk.uio.no/hke/AST5220/v11/AST5220_2_2011.pdf (slide 23 and onwards)
- andrekandre 7y ago
  >> it's just aging of light >You mean red-shifting or something else here? I think they are probably talking about tired light[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light [edit] spacing
  - v_lisivka 7y ago
    Not exactly. In tired light theory, red shift of light is result of scattering, which is very unlikely, because scattering changes course of photon, so these photons will not be associated with original object after some very short distance. My own idea is that photon itself has no mass, because it just wave of energy, but vacuum of volume of photon has some non-zero mass. As analogy, water wave has no mass, but water has, so water, which forms wave, can be affected by external forces, e.g. gravitation of Moon and Sun, thus form of water wave can be disturbed by these forces. LIGO demonstrated that light can be affected by gravitational waves, so these gravitational waves, in form of constant noise, can disturb shape of photon, so photon will lost small fraction of energy to gravitational field. Moreover, as EM force, photon should be affected by fluctuations of quantum foam, which are happened nearby. In this case, photon will lose small fraction of energy to these virtual particles.
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  > Because the other theories we leave behind do not make predictions compatible with our measurements of the universe. It's temporary. With more data, we will have more and more exceptions, which cannot be explained by patches to mainstream theory. >> so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale > What is this supposed to mean? Lifetime of larger objects usually is much larger than lifetime of smaller objects, so, as we increase scale of x,y,z, t axis should be increased proportionally. > You mean red-shifting or something else here? Modern version of tired light. A kind of resistance for light, which causes loss of energy proportional to light frequency. See below. > How do you account for the CMB angular power spectrum[1][2] with your "tired light"? I see just aged spectrum. IMHO, it's helium. :-/
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    > It's temporary. Yes, it's called science. > With more data, we will have more and more exceptions, which cannot be explained by patches to mainstream theory. At which point we hopefully come up with a new theory which fits the observations, and leave the current mainstream theory behind. This happened for example when General Relativity was introduced. Until we find a new theory which fits all the observations, we have a transition period where things are a bit confusing. See for example particle physics before the QCD model tied it back together. Now we're starting to see cracks in the the current standard model of particle physics, so something new is likely needed soon. This is science. > I see just aged spectrum. IMHO, it's helium. :-/ The power spectrum I linked to is the angular power spectrum of the CMB. It's not the spectral density. The horizontal scale is (in essence) angular separation, not frequency. How does helium explain the peaks in the angular power spectrum? Link to some calculations please.
    - v_lisivka 7y ago
      > angular power spectrum of the CMB My bad. I'm not familiar with this. (Beware, my English is weak). I had year long discussion about similar topic by email, so I see nothing exceptional there. If you have sum(sin(x_natscale)), and you will start to play with scale, you will see sinusoidal graphic, freq=asin(scale). Object formations in space usually have round shape, so it's will be same in 3D. :-/ Why? Because our formation exists for very long time. Let's play simple example: we need a 1d function f(x), such as sum(f(x_nat*scale)) newer produces infinite sum or singularity. Physical meaning: Our Universe exists for infinite time, but all matter is not attracted into one single point of infinite mass, so it's not possible. The simplest such function is sin(x) or cos(x). If we will try to play with scale, we newer be able to make infinite sum, because Pi is irrational number. The closer our scale will be to Pi, the larger peaks of sum we will have. In real life, this influence diminishes after some point, so, for example, size of nuclei has influence at frequency (distribution) of chemical elements, but it has no influence at macro objects, so function becomes flat and sum must rise (e.g. collapse into a black hole), then next level begins. So, it looks like at some point, these formations cannot be bigger, or we cannot see light from them, e.g. because they are so massive, so light cannot escape them. If so, we have lower limit of formation size we can see at this distance, dictated by geometry (angular size) and luminosity, and upper limit dictated by nature, e.g. upper mass of formation of such size (upper density). It's like in our galaxy: we can see stars, but cannot see black holes (too heavy), lone planets and smaller objects (too cold), and far away objects after certain distance (too small luminosity). IMHO, angular power spectrum of visible stars must show distribution similar to CMB or distribution of chemical elements.

u-get-downvotes 7y ago

Enjoy your downvotes, you worthless piece of shit. And remember: it’s just that the software produces a “noisy signal” at first.

v_lisivka 7y ago

I have some followers^W folhaters here. :-)

magicalhippo 7y ago

> The mystery is why only one theory is accepted, while all other are left behind. Because the other theories we leave behind do not make predictions compatible with our measurements of the universe. > so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale What is this supposed to mean? > it's just aging of light You mean red-shifting or something else here? > so background microwaves is just aged light from distant objects How do you account for the CMB angular power spectrum[1][2] with your "tired light"? [1]: http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.html http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.htm... [2]: http://folk.uio.no/hke/AST5220/v11/AST5220_2_2011.pdf http://folk.uio.no/hke/AST5220/v11/AST5220_2_2011.pdf (slide 23 and onwards)

andrekandre 7y ago
>> it's just aging of light >You mean red-shifting or something else here? I think they are probably talking about tired light[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light [edit] spacing
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  Not exactly. In tired light theory, red shift of light is result of scattering, which is very unlikely, because scattering changes course of photon, so these photons will not be associated with original object after some very short distance. My own idea is that photon itself has no mass, because it just wave of energy, but vacuum of volume of photon has some non-zero mass. As analogy, water wave has no mass, but water has, so water, which forms wave, can be affected by external forces, e.g. gravitation of Moon and Sun, thus form of water wave can be disturbed by these forces. LIGO demonstrated that light can be affected by gravitational waves, so these gravitational waves, in form of constant noise, can disturb shape of photon, so photon will lost small fraction of energy to gravitational field. Moreover, as EM force, photon should be affected by fluctuations of quantum foam, which are happened nearby. In this case, photon will lose small fraction of energy to these virtual particles.
v_lisivka 7y ago
> Because the other theories we leave behind do not make predictions compatible with our measurements of the universe. It's temporary. With more data, we will have more and more exceptions, which cannot be explained by patches to mainstream theory. >> so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale > What is this supposed to mean? Lifetime of larger objects usually is much larger than lifetime of smaller objects, so, as we increase scale of x,y,z, t axis should be increased proportionally. > You mean red-shifting or something else here? Modern version of tired light. A kind of resistance for light, which causes loss of energy proportional to light frequency. See below. > How do you account for the CMB angular power spectrum[1][2] with your "tired light"? I see just aged spectrum. IMHO, it's helium. :-/
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  > It's temporary. Yes, it's called science. > With more data, we will have more and more exceptions, which cannot be explained by patches to mainstream theory. At which point we hopefully come up with a new theory which fits the observations, and leave the current mainstream theory behind. This happened for example when General Relativity was introduced. Until we find a new theory which fits all the observations, we have a transition period where things are a bit confusing. See for example particle physics before the QCD model tied it back together. Now we're starting to see cracks in the the current standard model of particle physics, so something new is likely needed soon. This is science. > I see just aged spectrum. IMHO, it's helium. :-/ The power spectrum I linked to is the angular power spectrum of the CMB. It's not the spectral density. The horizontal scale is (in essence) angular separation, not frequency. How does helium explain the peaks in the angular power spectrum? Link to some calculations please.
  - v_lisivka 7y ago
    > angular power spectrum of the CMB My bad. I'm not familiar with this. (Beware, my English is weak). I had year long discussion about similar topic by email, so I see nothing exceptional there. If you have sum(sin(x_natscale)), and you will start to play with scale, you will see sinusoidal graphic, freq=asin(scale). Object formations in space usually have round shape, so it's will be same in 3D. :-/ Why? Because our formation exists for very long time. Let's play simple example: we need a 1d function f(x), such as sum(f(x_nat*scale)) newer produces infinite sum or singularity. Physical meaning: Our Universe exists for infinite time, but all matter is not attracted into one single point of infinite mass, so it's not possible. The simplest such function is sin(x) or cos(x). If we will try to play with scale, we newer be able to make infinite sum, because Pi is irrational number. The closer our scale will be to Pi, the larger peaks of sum we will have. In real life, this influence diminishes after some point, so, for example, size of nuclei has influence at frequency (distribution) of chemical elements, but it has no influence at macro objects, so function becomes flat and sum must rise (e.g. collapse into a black hole), then next level begins. So, it looks like at some point, these formations cannot be bigger, or we cannot see light from them, e.g. because they are so massive, so light cannot escape them. If so, we have lower limit of formation size we can see at this distance, dictated by geometry (angular size) and luminosity, and upper limit dictated by nature, e.g. upper mass of formation of such size (upper density). It's like in our galaxy: we can see stars, but cannot see black holes (too heavy), lone planets and smaller objects (too cold), and far away objects after certain distance (too small luminosity). IMHO, angular power spectrum of visible stars must show distribution similar to CMB or distribution of chemical elements.