Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cyrek1
The predictions for the CMBR by Gamow were the closest but after downsizing it from 10 to 5K
|
He still did rather better than any prediction that you've made on behalf of your model. Given that the temperature could range over many orders of magnitude, it wasn't a bad estimate.
Quote:
|
As I said before. McKeller OBSERVED a temperature of 2K in an intersteller molecule. This was in 1940 which was way ahead of the BB predictors. So I do not see where this amounts to real evidence on the part of the BB'ers predictions.
|
This
was an indirect measurement of the CMBR temperature, and understandibly no-one spotted the significance, i.e. that the molecular line was being excited by the ambient CMBR filling all of space. It was only afterwards that people looked at McKellar's result and realised it's significance.
Quote:
|
If you do not believe in the comet impact idea proven by ibservations, than what, in your opinion, causes the sunspots and the flares?
|
Mike, even if we didn't have a clue about what causes sunspots and flares, that wouldn't mean that we couldn't rule out your model. Just as your suggestions that the way to disprove your theory for an SSU appears to require us to prove the case for the BB, is a logical falacy. It is possible for
both theories to be wrong.
Quote:
Fortis
I already explained the 2nd law about thermodynamoics in the article on page 14 , 3rd post from the bottom. Did you read it?
|
Mike, I have read your posts, and it is clear that you still do not understand about thermodynamics otherwise you wouldn't have made the claim that the 2nd law violates the 1st law for a closed system. If this were true, then the Nobel proze would be yours.
Please can you justify this claim.
Quote:
|
Regarding 'annomalous magnetic moment', this has nothing to do with the subject matter.
|
It has everything to do with your model of the photon. If your model cannot predict the anomalous magnetic moment with the same degree of accuracy as QED (with it's virtual photons, etc.) then why should I prefer your model.
In fact, as your explanation of the CMBR and redshift is intimately connected to your model of the photon, then a failure of your photon model surely has a large knonk-on effect on the viability of your SSU model.