Originally Posted by Nereid

If you wish to retract your previous assertions, or modify them, please say so (and do so).

Otherwise, they stand, as your presentation of your ATM idea.

As such, BAUT members are encouraged to question and challenge them, and you are required to answer their questions and challenges in a timely manner.

If you do not know how to answer a direct, pertinent question about an aspect of your ATM idea, as presented, please say so.

If you cannot answer such a question, please say so.

So, let's try again, shall we?

Here's your ATM assertion (my bold): "Over long transmission periods the waves of the light radiation will stretch back out and become paeps. An interim step in this process is* the microwave background. Microwaves have longer wavelengths than light and are partially stretched out light waves. They are the first stage in the reason that the night sky is not solid starlight as asked by Olber in his paraox."

Here are my questions on this (I've added numbering):

1) Why isn't the intensity of the microwave background infinite?

I believe intensity varies with distance from the source and by the time light or heat waves from stars have stretched into microwaves they have traveled very far.

2) How does your ATM idea account for the actual, observed intensity of the microwave background?

See question 1. Also, I have not worked on this, but am learning how important it is. Why is it isotrophic and at this particular wavelength of 1.9MM - 2.725 degrees? Is it possible the motions of the earth as receptor has something to do with the shape and length of the waves observed especially when they are very long. Much to contemplate.


3) Why is the 'interim step in this process [...] the microwave background'?

The word interim confuses the issue here as microwaves are near the extreme length where the various infrared wouuld be more interim in nature.

4a) Why isn't it a near-infrared one? 4b) or a far-infrared one? 4c) or a VLF radio one?

Please answer these questions.How do paeps 'strik[e] nuclei just right'?

As fusion is essentially the merging of 2 hydrogen atoms, pushing two nuclei together may be by the simultaneous hitting of 2 nearby nuclei by 2 separate paeps.

*There is no ambiguity here; per your post in the other thread ("I am [...] connecting my ideas together with logic"), there must be a firm logical link for you to write "is"!