/sci/ - Science & Math

means the shit we learned about with astronomy may be fundamentally wrong
red shifts were meant to mean stars were moving away from us
and that there'd be heat death of the universe

but instead it just means higher concentrations of hydrogen
fucking demoralizing kike deep state won't talk about it cause it changes a ton in astronomy
who knows if stars are even moving away from us at this point now
space could be static
throws out how they prove a lot of the big bang and everything

yeah I wonder if others will try and validate the claims and if anything more will come of it
that shit just came out 3 days ago

>>11992952
See someone schizo

I understood everything up to equation (9). I saw he referred to Reference 16 there, but the equation is only given and not motivated in that reference. What I don't understand is how the frequency depends on "n." In Reference 16 he gives pic formula not in Gaussian units so taking "m" as the mass of hydrogen atom
[math] \omega\approx\sqrt{ \dfrac{10\times 10^{-19}\times 10^{-19}\times n}{10\times 10^{-12} \times10^{-27}} } \approx\sqrt{n}[/math]

If we take a "n" as Avogadro's number, which is a severe underestimation for the number of atoms in a star, the the frequency is on the order of 10^11 or 10^12. Pic related, that's reasonable but how does it work when "n" is not on the order of Avogadro's number? And how many moles are in a star? I would like to see how he came up with frequency depending on "n."

>>11992972
if red-shift is a local phenomenon the implication (which hasn't really been brought up) is that we can no longer judge distance. We have no fucking clue where anything is at relative to earth. It will take 100 years for the science community to accept this (if it's true ofc) because all of their speculations and theories about space would be completely wrong. we often hear about 'rewriting the book' on one thing or another, but this is a catastrophic scenario.

>>11992997
>copypasting from the /pol/ thread

>>11992990
wait...did the tookmeister just spot a legit fuck-up in a paper?

>>11992950
>demoralization shit
what

A red shift just flew over my house!

Ah... I read two more lines and I see m is the electron mass, so [math] \omega\approx\sqrt{n/2000} [/math] and "n" is the atom concentration, whatever that is. I hate when they give the equation and then say what the variables are in a later paragraph. I see the rest of the paper is devoted to the physics of "n" so I cannot dismiss this result. Seems like a decent paper.

>>11993001
No. Turns out "n" is a density. If it was just a number then I could say it is probably wrong but if it's a density then that seems reasonable at least even if I don't quite understand what is happening.

>>11993020
Awww I was so excited for you,but hey,you're honest enough to admit when you're wrong,in tihs context at least.

>>11992950
I'd have strongly preferred it if you just remained in the /pol/ thread, my schizophrenic friend.

>>11992950
I looked at the data. There's obvious mistakes.

>>11993083
Care to point them out?

>>11993085
just look at it

>>11993181
based

>>11993181
it has been divinely revaluated to me that your gay

Small brain here. Hoping you guys will smooth this out as to whether this paper holds any weight and red shift may in fact have been incorrect.

>>11992950
Finally, the schizo big bang bullshit can go to bed.

Please tell me this isn't some Electric Universe shit.

>>11994713
why would big bang being wrong, prove something else right?

>>11992997
>It will take 100 years for the science community to accept this (if it's true ofc)
Even if it were true, it would never be accepted. All of the scientific beliefs of today are set in stone. The cult will never recognize that they're wrong about anything.

>>11994742
I'm sure they'll just rewrite existing theories to include a "Dark Red Shift" and then go on to say red shifting still occurs we just can't detect it. :)

>>11992997
>the only way astronomy can gauge distance is red shift
That's wrong on multiple levels. The only time red shift is used to gauge distance is for objects that are too far away for more accurate measurements to be used.

For local (in our galaxy) objects we generally use parallax to determine distance, which is basically measuring the size of an object from two different angles during Earth's orbit and then comparing with the known properties of the object to come up with a probably distance. For objects that are in nearby galaxies we generally use set-variable brightness stars that we know the properties of to determine the distance to that galaxy. Redshift is actually a pretty inaccurate way to gauge interstellar distances.

All that being said, if OP's paper is on to something and red shift isn't what we think it is that would have massive implications for astronomy, but not in determine distances. The immediate question that comes to my mind though, is what the fuck is local blue shift if red shift isn't objects moving away?

>more hydrogen means more red
>younger means more hydrogen
>light has finite speed
>so further away means younger
>no need for shit to move away so fast then
looks like it works and it could explain the discrepancy
in measuring the hubble constant
since the SHOES measurement relies on redshift
and gives a larger Hubble constant than the cmb experiment
t. watched the pbs video

>>11992990
Didn't read the paper but that formula looks like the one for plasma frequency. n might be concentration (number/volume).

>when Zeno was right all along
ahaha ha haha

>>11994836
>>more hydrogen means more red
>>younger means more hydrogen
>>light has finite speed
>>so further away means younger
>>no need for shit to move away so fast then

Ok trying to wrap my head around this. If this new info is correct, then shouldn't everything far away from us be redshifted since anything significantly far will be in a young appearance due to how long light takes to reach us from there?

And how does this explain things that are far away from us being blueshifted?

I told you Einstein was wrong. Why didn't you listen?

>>11994884
are the two phenomenon mutually exclusive though? Couldn't we have both?
Also, isn't everything already redshifted like that to some extent due to cosmic inflation? (Or am I wrong?) Maybe some of the effect got lumped into it?

>Oh look a 10 page paper on arXiv that makes an incredible claim
>But it has absolutely no independent testing
>I guess it must be true

Fuck off OP.

>>11994945
Oh so the alternative is never entertaining the idea or discussing it at all? Fuck off faggot.

>>11994948
You can discuss a paper without presenting it as true. The opening post clearly suggests that.

Even assuming this wasn't complete nonsense it is clear that this process cannot be responsible for cosmological redshift. In the paper the amount of redshifting strongly depends on the wavelength of light, that is not what happens in the real universe. Cosmological redshift is constant with wavelength and that has been tested extensively.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.09380

>>11993012
>Hey anon
>I heard you are upset with the status quo in astronomy
>Something needs to be done
>You could be the person to do something and become a hero
>Would you like to buy a sawed-off red shift in the parking lot by your house?
>Science needs you

>well it turns out red shift just means the sun has higher concentration of hydrogen

Wrong. Read the paper. Nowhere in the conclusions does it claim that this is cosmological redshift. It's not even suggested. That's because the amount of red-shifting in this proposed effect depends on the local density at emission, this cannot explain Hubble's law where the redshift is related to distance. People are just reading into this too much.

"If we take into account the electrical polarization of hydrogen atoms, then the red shift
of spectral lines of these atoms and the dip in their optical spectrum appear. This dip is
on the blue side relative to the place of the shifted line. The red shift value and the width
of the dip strongly depend on the hydrogen atom concentration and the place of the not
shifted line.
This effect is significant for interstellar hydrogen atoms if the wavelength of the spectral
lines of these atoms is in the radio frequency range.
The value of this effect can be significant for the optical spectrum of hydrogen atoms that
can be in interstellar dust clouds. Perhaps this is due to the high concentration of hydrogen
atoms in the dust substance.
Quasars in which dust clouds are of significant importance [24] give experimental spectra
with such features [3, 24, 25]. The line Lyα of hydrogen atoms of quasars has a high red
shift (Fig. 14.4 [3], Fig. 1 [24], and Fig. 8 [25]). Besides, this line has a dip on the blue side
relative to the shifted line (Fig. 14.4 [3], Fig. 1 [24], and Fig. 8 [25
These results are essential for astrophysics. Therefore, it is desirable to test them experimentally in terrestrial laboratories. Indeed, in laboratory conditions, there are methods to
obtain and stabilize hydrogen atoms both in the state of free gas [22, 26, 27] and as part of
a solid [22, 23]."

>>11994746
What? Is dark matter a meme too?

>>11994945
>>But it has absolutely no independent testing
>The current theories independent testing contradicts itself
>but youre being ridiculous for considering alternatives
nu science is a fucking joke

>>11992950
Welp universe is 7000 years old, that's the best theory we have at the moment.

>>11995318
Were the creationists right?
>Gaythieist btfo'd

>>11995327
That would be the funniest moment in history, the people who verify it would be too afraid to release the results. But everyone would know, it would be like how Jeffery Epstein didn't kill himself.

>>11995327
>All the fossils and rock layers were an elaborate prank by god
>He isn't even mad as athiests in thier disbelief in and of itself, and just spends eternity roasting them for falling for it

>>11995171
>he doesn't know that 95% of the universe is a meme cope for astrophysicists to preserve their goofy equations

>>11994836
>watched the pbs video
sauce me on that?

>>11995239
Current theories successfully predicted the CMB. This has nothing.

>>11995987
The one called Crisis in Cosmology
its not talking about this paper but about discrepancies in measuring the Hubble constant
>>11996522
Why the fuck do you think this is meant to rule out the cmb
it just points out a source of error we didnt know of before

based

>>11997728
based on WHAT?

>>11992950
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

>>11997275
>Crisis in Cosmology
thanks anon!

>>11997738
truth

>>11992950
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

>>11999367
>>11997275
>Hubble constant
so the nerds can't figure out where the correct value is on the scale between 68...72
Wow it's fucking nothing
It's more a discussion on the tools used do do the measurement, not on the universe itself - no matter what the correct value turns out to be, the big picture of how the universe evolved stays pretty much the same.

>>11999367
>>11997275
>Hubble constant
So the nerds can't figure out where the correct value is on the scale between 68...72
Wow it's fucking nothing.
It's more a discussion about the tools of the trade, not on the universe itself - no matter what the correct value turns out to be, the big picture of how the universe evolved stays pretty much the same.

>>11996522
I'm not aware of anything that predicts the global properties of the CMB without taking the CMB as an input, and there's a lot of outstanding mysteries in the CMB as well. Namely: how are two points in the CMB opposite in the sky in thermal equilibrium when information from one point could never have propagated 27Gcy tto the opposite point during the 13.5Gy age of the universe?

Usually the CMB theory stuff the limited little bit of which I am aware at least, is phenomenology which shows we can model the CMB without blowing up physics, but that is a lot different than "predicting the CMB" which would necessarily entail not using any CMB data as a starting point. "Successfully predicted the CMB" is hugely vague. What results are you referring to?

>>11999974
>"Successfully predicted the CMB" is hugely vague. What results are you referring to?
He's clearly referring to the prediction of the existence of the CMB. The prediction from theory preceded its detection.

Standard theory has predicted lots of features of the CMB. From its highly backbody nature to the form of the angular powerspectrum.

>how are two points in the CMB opposite in the sky in thermal equilibrium when information from one point could never have propagated 27Gcy tto the opposite point during the 13.5Gy age of the universe?

Inflation. Also the scales you are quoting are wrong, the universe was much less expanded back then. Inflation independent predicted that the scalar spectral index would be close to but less than one, which has been confirmed at high significance by Planck.

>>11992950
One Ukraine study against all of modern science? How retarded do you have to be to say it’s game over for the Big Bang? I guess as retarded as OP.

>>12001538
>theory preceded its detection.
I agree its existence was deduced from the BB generating a last scattering surfce when the universe cooled off enough to be become optically transmissive in its bulk but I don't think any of its properties were predicted before the detection: the temp, the angular feature scale, certainly not the multipole moments which remain not-predicted to this day, and other properties with which I'm unfamiliar.

Yes, the blackbody spectrum was certainly predicted. That's true but it's completely trivial. Should a blackbody's thermal spectrum be the blackbody spectrum? Yes, obviously. I do not think the scale of the angular features were predicted by anything other than random happenstance guessing before the measurements were made. When these experiments were first being launched, everyone was saying, "Whose randomly parameterized model is going to support the observations?!?!" There was no "first principles" prediction of the angular scale.

Inflation explains the thermal equilibrium but it just kicks the can down down the road since inflation has a lot of problems.
>What holds up the Earth?
>A turtle!
>What holds up the turtle?
>An elephant!
>What holds up the elephant, etc.
Inflation is not a good idea and I think Steinhart summarized all of my criticisms perfectly here:
>http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf
I prefer not to kick the can down the inflation road and simply ask the direct question about thermal equilibrium. If anyone ever comes up with a working model of inflation, I'll be surprised.

>Also the scales you are quoting are wrong
The scales are wrong depending on when thermal eq. was achieved but my point remains that thermal eq. across the diameter of the universe is always going to have a problem when the age of the universe is proportional to the radius.

Pleasure to speak with someone who actually knows something and can communicate in an ordinary fashion. I don't see many people like you around here

>>12002723
>Inflation explains the thermal equilibrium
>my point remains that thermal eq. across the diameter of the universe is always going to have a problem when the age of the universe is proportional to the radius.
Actually, does inflation even explain it? Is inflation superluminal? I forgot how inflation is supposed to work since mostly I know it doesn't work. How could inflation support thermal equilibrium across the diameter of a universe whose age is proportional to its radius?

>>12002723
>Yes, the blackbody spectrum was certainly predicted. That's true but it's completely trivial.
It was not trivial. There were competing models which claimed the CMB had to be local radiation, these models failed to explain the backbody nature of the CMB. It's just simple history. Not every model agreed that it was backbody radiation.

>I do not think the scale of the angular features were predicted by anything other than random happenstance guessing before the measurements were made.
Not the scale, the form. As I said. These were not randomly parameterised models, that's utter bullshit. It was standard theory that predicted there would be peaks in the powerspectrum due to baryon acoustic oscillations.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9603033

They could not predict the scale because they didn't know the underlying cosmology. But the fact that the structure in the powerspectrum matched predictions was a huge success. The complex features of the powerspectra (see fig) were not just "guessed". The information in these curves is orders of magnitude more than the temperature and the absolute angular scale.

>, the angular feature scale, certainly not the multipole moments
The amplitudes of the multipole moments are the powerspectrum.

>I prefer not to kick the can down the inflation road and simply ask the direct question about thermal equilibrium.
Some might not like inflation but it doesn't change the fact that it is what explains the horizon problem in standard cosmology. People regularly ignore that inflation has already made a successful independent prediction, as I described previously.

>The scales are wrong depending on when thermal eq. ..
The scales are wrong because you just multiplied the age of the universe by 2, which is not how distances work.

>>12002744
Of course inflation explains it, it was one of the reasons it was proposed. "Superluminal" doesn't mean anything in metric expansion.

Why can't mods permaban this spamming retard?

>>12003659
I'm not sure what you mean by "models" if you're not talking about random hodgepodges of parameter guesses to fill in the fill in the gaps where there are not first principles calculations. What do you mean by "models?"

Since I don't know what you mean, i can't really comment on your opinion. As far the CMB being predicted as the surface of last scattering during the epoch of baryogenesis, this absolutely was a trivial blackbody. This is where I get confused about what you mean by "models." Anything predicting the CMB from something other than an optical transition in the phase of the early universe seems like it must have been something completely random. The optical transition "theory" was a trivial blackbody.

>>12003659
Again, I don't know what you mean by the "form" of the angular features in the characteristic temperature fluctuations. I remember there were basically three possible outcomes: angular scale less than one degree, about one degree, and greater than one degree, and no one know which it would be because there was no first principles derivation of this quantity and instead it was just a bunch of parameter hodgepodges showing different things it could be without making the universe explode. We were able to predict the power spectrum because it was constrained by previous experiments, so the shortcoming or failure of theory was remedied by phenomenology, but the angular feature scale was not predicted by theory or phenomenology before the CMB experiments answered it, and these predictions are the things I refer to as random guesses.

>>11992950
articles on arxiv that i do not read are from the chinese and the eastern europe

>>12003659
All of the power spectrum predictions were phenomenological in nature, constraining the predictions by very many previous experimental results, iirc. The power spectrum prediction was a "big success" because it showed that we had global consistency across the empirically constrained cosmological model. The success of the prediction did not imply the success of any first principles calculation of what the power spectrum ought to have been. These particular models weren't "random hodgepodges" because they were taken from results of previous experiments away from the CMB.

From a phenomenology perspective, it was a big success. From a theory perspective, anything other than an accurate power spectrum prediction would have meant the experimentalists were not doing their job properly.

To the contrary, all the predictions for the angular scale of the characteristic thermal fluctuations, IMO the most important thing we got from the CMB experiments, were all random. The angular scale was not constrained by other experiments. It was an open question: not determined by theory or phenomenology. Everyone who got this most important question about the scale correct did it by guessing. You can tell they were guessing because the community was airly well split over which of the three outcomes might have been observed.

Overall, I would say that you are an experimentalist or a phenomenologist and you are happy when all the experiments are consistent with each other. On the other hand, I am theorist and I am only happy when we can predict the results of all the experiments without seeing data from any of them, an that leads to our difference of opinion about how great certain things were.

>>12003659
>The amplitudes of the multipole moments are the powerspectrum.
Here I have no idea what you mean. The multipole moments I'm talking about are the so-called "evil axis" of thermal polarization which has no basis in a spherically symmetric big bang model. This is major unsolved problem in cosmology right now.

>the fact that it is what explains the horizon problem in standard cosmology.
This isn't a fact though. Saying it explains it is like saying an elephant explains what holds up the turtle which hold up the world. It is not a good explanation because the question: what holds up the elephant?

>The scales are wrong because you just multiplied the age of the universe by 2, which is not how distances work.
The distance between to opposite points in the CMB is always going to be about twice the age of the universe. Due to the big bang increasing the scale of the universe by its radius, when the universe is one year old, the diameter of the universe will be about 2cy. When it is X billion years old, the diameter will be about 2X Gcy. I forget the exact details of the problem here because now I'm wondering equilibrium might not have stimulated by the symmetry of the initial condition.

>>12003700
>>12003711
>>12003722
nice dubs

>>12003711
>I don't know what you mean by the "form" of the angular features in the characteristic temperature fluctuations.
The shape of the curves in the powerspectrum. You don't need to know the absolute scale to predict the shape of the powerspectrum.

>I remember there were basically three possible outcomes: angular scale less than one degree, about one degree, and greater than one degree
Think about what you're saying though. The angular scale of what? The angular scale of the first peak. Why was a peak expected? Because it was predicted from theory. So was the existence of the other peaks. That was a big prediction. Changing the absolute scale just shifts the peaks left and right, but the overall shape remains the same.

>All of the power spectrum predictions were phenomenological in nature
Wrong. See the paper I attached. That is a description of how to calculate the prediction from theory. Most of the structure hand't been measured by then.

>constraining the predictions by very many previous experimental results, iirc
Also wrong. See my figure. That is from 1995. Note that the powerspectrum shown from theory is almost exactly what is found today. The figure also shows all the observational data at the time. There is no way the curve could be guessed just based on the observations. This was a prediction.

You're ranting and raving about the scale but that is not the point I'm making, at all. I've made that very clear. The absolute angular scale is literally just a single datapoint.

>>12003736
>Here I have no idea what you mean. The multipole moments I'm talking about are the so-called "evil axis" of thermal polarization which has no basis in a spherically symmetric big bang model. This is major unsolved problem in cosmology right now.
Predicting the powerspectrum is predicting the multipole moments, because that's what the PS is. It's the scalar amplitude at each multipole. Talking about them like they're totally different things is silly.

The "axis of evil" is the alignment of just 2 multipoles, and it has nothing to do with "thermal polarisation", whatever that is supposed to mean. The axis of evil is not a major problem, people talk about it because there are so few deviations from standard theory. The problem with these anomalies is the look-elsewhere effect, it is difficult to assess how statistically significant these features are because people looked for deviations in millions of ways.

>This isn't a fact though.
It is a fact. Theory is defined that way.

>The distance between to opposite points in the CMB is always going to be about twice the age of the universe. Due to the big bang increasing the scale of the universe by its radius, when the universe is one year old, the diameter of the universe will be about 2cy

That is completely wrong. The diameter of the universe in comoving distance is 93 billion lightyears. In a static universe the observable universe would grow at the speed of light, as new parts became observable. Clearly in an expanding universe the radius has to be larger.

>>12003741
I was using "angular scale" to refer to the size of the average colored blobs in this picture: the acoustic oscillations. Neither theory nor phenomenology had any idea what this should have been before it got measured.

>The angular scale of what?
acoustic oscillations

>See the paper I attached.
Equations 4 and 5 are equations of state. Where do these come from if not previous experiments? I won't be able discuss it with you further than that. If you say it's not parametrized then I won't have anything to say about it because I'm not familiar enough with the various equations of state to know where they come from. You might be right. If you can understand that whole paper then you know a lot more about it that I do. However, Eqs 4 and 5 look parameterized to me. If you say they're not, I won't have any way to disprove you.

>Also wrong. See my figure.
If it wasn't phenomenological, then wouldn't that mean it was based on a guess regarding the scale of the acoustic fluctuations which were not known before the experiments measured them? You have demonstrated superior subject mastery. Since I can't even understand the vertical axis on the plot you refer me to, I don't think I will be able to continue to offer well-reasoned responses to your highly specific claims.

>You're ranting and raving about the scale but that is not the point I'm making, at all.
The scale of the acoustic fluctuations is what was important for the rate of galaxy formation and similar processes: big picture astronomy/astrophysics stuff. It was YOU who misunderstood ME when you thought I was talking about the power spectrum instead of the acoustic oscillations. I thought the power spectrum was a minor detail determined by these experiments compared to the scale of the acoustic fluctuations in the sky. Why do we give a shit about the power spectrum? I don't know. The scale of the acoustic oscillations governs literally everything in astrophysics.

>>12003754
>Predicting the powerspectrum is predicting the multipole moments, because that's what the PS is. It's the scalar amplitude at each multipole.
You are talking about the certain moments but I am talking about the moments in the acoustic fluctiations: the "evil axs" which is famous and can be easily googled. This has nothing to do with the power moments.

>Talking about them like they're totally different things is silly.
I think you're fucking with me now and you know I meant the acoustic moments. Every knows the "evil axis" refers to the acoustic moments.

>The "axis of evil" is the alignment of just 2 multipoles, and it has nothing to do with "thermal polarisation
Your failure to distinguish which multipoles your referring to, as if all physical multipoles were fungible, makes me quite certain that you are fucking with me. You see where I wrote, "Pleasure to speak with someone who actually knows something and can communicate in an ordinary fashion?" Never mind on that. I was wrong.

>That is completely wrong. The diameter of the universe in comoving distance is 93 billion lightyears. In a static universe the observable universe would grow at the speed of light, as new parts became observable. Clearly in an expanding universe the radius has to be larger.
obvious troll is obvious.

>>12003786
>I was using "angular scale" to refer to the size of the average colored blobs in this picture: the acoustic oscillations.
Which is what the first peak is. The prediction that there even was a peak from baryon acoustic oscillations came from theory.

>Equations 4 and 5 are equations of state. Where do these come from if not previous experiments?
They're just fluid equations. I don't know how you could even believe these things could be derived from observations that existed back then.

>If it wasn't phenomenological, then wouldn't that mean it was based on a guess regarding the scale of the acoustic fluctuations which were not known before the experiments measured them? You have demonstrated superior subject mastery. Since I can't even understand the vertical axis on the plot you refer me to, I don't think I will be able to continue to offer well-reasoned responses to your highly specific claims.
The left axis on the plot is the same thing that is on any CMB powerspectrum. It shows how much power exists on different scales.

As I have said, twice, this is not about the scale. The scale doesn't matter for predicting the form.

>The scale of the acoustic fluctuations is what was important for the rate of galaxy formation and similar processes
It tells you the matter density, but that doesn't somehow mean that it's the only thing that can be predicted.

>t was YOU who misunderstood ME when you thought I was talking about the power spectrum instead of the acoustic oscillations.
The acoustic oscillations are measured with the powerspectrum. That's what the peaks are.

Secondly, this whole conversation branched out of me saying that theory predicted the form of the powerspectrum. This wasn't about what you said. I never claimed standard theory predicted the scale of the first peak, it's you who are obsessed with that for some reason.

>>12002744
>Is inflation superluminal
fast enough to expand a proton to the size of 1 bn ly in 1E-18 seconds, so hell yeah

>>12003811
>You are talking about the certain moments but I am talking about the moments in the acoustic fluctiations: the "evil axs" which is famous and can be easily googled. This has nothing to do with the power moments.
Yes it does, you just don't know what you're saying. The axis of evil is an alignment between the quadrupole and octupole moment. At these large scales the multipoles have nothing to do with baryon oscillations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

>I think you're fucking with me now and you know I meant the acoustic moments. Every knows the "evil axis" refers to the acoustic moments.
"acoustic moments" doesn't mean anything. The axis of evil is not related to baryon oscillations.

>Your failure to distinguish which multipoles your referring to
But I thought you knew what you were talking about? This is the most basic definition of the axis of evil. As I said, quadrupole and octupole moments.

>obvious troll is obvious.

Don't call people trolls if you know nothing about basic cosmology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

>According to calculations, the current comoving distance—proper distance, which takes into account that the universe has expanded since the light was emitted—to particles from which the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was emitted, which represents the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light-years),

They even have a section for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions_about_its_size

>>12003836
But expansion doesn't have a speed. The rate of recession between two objects depends on their separation. Yes, if the separation is large enough then inflation will have made objects recede at more than the speed of light. But regular expansion does that too, it's just that the required distance is much larger.

Expansion gives you a rate of recession per unit distance m/s/m, or in astrophysical units km/s/Mpc. It's not a speed.

>>12003825
Like I said, you're being too specific or too vague for me to respond meaningfully, and I can't tell which because i don't know as much as about it as you. You might be right but I don't think so. You said the "evil axis" was not a major unsolved mystery but it definitely is. Your satisfaction with inflation as an answer FOR ANYTHING, EVER, when inflation has ten million problems with it makes me doubt your opinion about EVERYTHING. Inflation is garbage.

>As I have said, twice, this is not about the scale.
I am 100% certain that the angular scale of the acoustic fluctuations is the absolute bottom line throttle on galaxy formation during the history of the universe. Furthermore, I am sure that this is by far the most important measurement made in the CMB experiments. I was trying to talk to you about the most important part of it and you went off on the little tangents, and then you conflated the little tangents with the main result by failing to distinguish the various sort of multipoles that can be extrapolated from these experiments, and the various scales in the data as well.

>I never claimed standard theory predicted the scale of the first peak
Yeah. It doesn't. Phenomenology doesn't either. This is the main thing these experiments were launched to measure.

>>12003845
You're being an ignoranus again. In the wiki it says:

"Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in a 2006 Edge.org article: But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun – the plane of the earth around the sun – the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."

The CMB map is literally the picture of the acoustic oscillations.

>>12003865
>I am sure that this is by far the most important measurement made in the CMB experiments. I was trying to talk to you about the most important part of it and you went off on the little tangents
The angular scale was the tangent. My original statement that you didn't like was "Standard theory has predicted lots of features of the CMB. From its highly backbody nature to the form of the angular powerspectrum." Nothing about the scale of the first peak. You went off on this strawman about the first peak when it had nothing to do with what I said. I have corrected you time and time again but you don't care.

>This is the main thing these experiments were launched to measure.
Back to talking out your ass. Why was Planck built if the scale of the first peak had already been measured exquisitely?

>>12003890
You acting like you didn't know which plot I was referring to the angular scale of is enough for me to dismiss you. I don't like you.

>OMG
>like duh
>I'm all like pic related and junk
>and you're totally all like
>what's for lunch?

>>12003874
Read what the actual technical description you retard.
>Specifically, with respect to the ecliptic plane the "top half" of the CMB is slightly cooler than the "bottom half"; furthermore, the quadrupole and octupole axes are only a few degrees apart, and these axes are aligned with the top/bottom divide.

Which is exactly what I fucking said.


>The CMB map is literally the picture of the acoustic oscillations.
No, there is other physics in there too, from the primordial power spectrum to silk dampening to the Sachs Wolfe effect.

>>12003911
not the real acorn

>>12003900
The bottom pic isn't from WMAP you retard. And if you don't understand that a powerspectrum is just a Fourier decomposition of the map then you should stop posting.

If you actually look at one of the results papers from Planck you will see that the first figure is the powerspectrum, no map.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209

I seem to have struck a nerve.

>>12003915
I can take pic related and construct the "evil axis" polarized multipole moments just from the pixels without ever looking at any other thing. Wavy line chicken chan has nothing to do with it.

If you guys haven't figured out by now that I am not a blowhard, but I am a real expert, then you're never going to figure it out.

>>12003933
You know you're arguing with a schizophrenic right?

>>12003945
>I can take pic related and construct the "evil axis" polarized multipole moments
You can't because that's just the intensity map, it doesn't carry any information about the polarisation. Those are different maps. Secondly, the axis of evil has nothing to do with polarisation. You're just talking out your ass, trying to appear clever.

No expert would work from a png which has been projected and doesn't even have a colourbar to convert pixels back to temperatures. Only a retard would do that when the real data is available in a convenient healpix format.

>>12003949
I do now that he's posting chicken.

>>12003958
>doesn't even have a colourbar to convert pixels back to temperatures
Nor would you need to know the temperature since the color of the pixel tells you temperature differences between opposite points in the sky.

>No expert would work from a png which has been projected
Literally BICEP2 did this two years ago

What a turd you must be to have gathered that education of yours and then think you should be a cunt to me on the internet because I have been segregated from your community. You wouldn't be a little bitch like this if it was physics coffee hour and yet here you are are: a little bitch just like this. Tell me who hurt you, child. Where did the bad man touch you?

>>11992950
This is actually pretty based.

Most of the people on here know little and think they know very much. They say the wrong thing over and over and they think they are right, or they don't, and I tell them I will kill them because they are spreading lies about me. Then here you are, you know very much but then there is an illness in you which afflicts your knowledge. You are worse than the know-nothings. They can blame it on Dunning-Kruger at least, but you have a high ability, and you have an accurate assessment of your ability, and then look what you do with it. It is icky. You are icky.

>>12003980
>Nor would you need to know the temperature since the color of the pixel tells you temperature differences between opposite points in the sky.
Subtracting two RGB values does not give you a temperature. You need a colour map to do anything physical.

>Literally BICEP2 did this two years ago
Because they didn't have the Planck data, it wasn't public then. All of the WMAP and Planck data is now public. That's the other half of my sentence that you cut off.

>you should be a cunt to me on the internet because I have been segregated from your community.
You're the one who started throwing insults. You called me a troll and an ignoranus. Don't act as if you've behaved with respect. Not only that but you wasted my time with your constant strawmaning. Insults are one thing but pretending not to hear what people say is just insulting. If you can't argue in good faith then you don't deserve any fucking respect.

>>12004022
>Don't act as if you've behaved with respect.
No you fucking piece of shit. I'm the one who's acting like a homeless fucking bum destitute loser that does better at physics by himself all alone in the corner of fucking McDonald's than literally the combined efforts of every professional physicist on earth. That's what I'm acting like. I'm fucking bitter about that too, can you tell? How much more than $200k per year do you make to do your job not half as well as I could do it, as I have proven over and over and over consistently year after year after year, while I can't even get minimum wage for it? I'm not even allowed to talk to people who might understand what I say and here you are, someone with whom I could feasibly communicate in a scholarly fashion, and somehow before you got to this thread you already had the idea that you should be a fucking nigger to me. So that's me and what I'm acting like, you cocknose shitcunt. Now who are you and what are you acting like?

>>12003852
I know effectively nothing about the mathematics at play, but couldn't we assign a speed of expansion as, say, the rate of recession between two objects, whose distance is the diameter of the universe?

>>12004049
If you were really keen to learn then you wouldn't get so hostile when people correct you. Your delusions of grandeur are also incomparable with actually working in physics, you never assume you know better than everyone else. No you couldn't do my job, as we have seen you got out of your depth very quickly. It also requires basic personal skills.

>I could feasibly communicate in a scholarly fashion, and somehow
Not somehow, you treated me like shit and still expect me to be nice in return. Fuck off, you reap what you sow. What a victim complex you have. And you could barely communicate, you didn't understand the terminology but insisted you knew better.

> I'm not even allowed to talk to people who might understand what I say
You are, but those people aren't required to listen when you're being a cunt. They also aren't required to listen when you spew bullshit.

>>12004081
You could, for the diameter of the observable universe. In that case inflation and current expansion are faster than light.

>>12004109
I hope that one day you will regret the things you've written here. If I can encourage you to do so, I certainly will.

>>12004117
I see, thank you.

>>11992950
*NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY* 'CODE RED.. CODE RED TO BATTLESTATIONS.....'

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH CODE RED
RED!!!!!

*dies from seizure*

*The scene at the science research center*

>>12001546
A single proper study is all that's needed to falsify a theory.

>>11994836
What about young stars in star nurseries that are in the milky way galaxy. Hardly distant are they.

>>12004134
I do regret writing my comments today, because it was a waste of my time to try and engage with someone like you.
You have no interest in learning, you had no interesting thoughts and you're a cunt.

>>12004150
This is true. Falsifying a theory, however, is rarely sufficient to get people to change their minds about it.

>>12004170
I could do your job far better than you.

RIP modern physics

>>12004204
>Falsifying a theory, however, is rarely sufficient to get people to change their minds about it.
yeah, you mean like how you refuse to accept the falsifications against you

>>12004162
I'd like averages and generalities for $600 please