I will give two analogies…
The thermal and non thermal CMB are mixed like…
1. Mixed like sand and rice, we have to sieve them/ separate them
2. Like pure water in a bowl. Take out a spoon-full from any where from bowl, define it as thermal, all the remaining is non-thermal…

You are already using analogy 2. But you have defined thermal and non-thermal CMB cannot be combined by laws of physics. Here the spoon of water is different from the bowl, only because that is in your hand. You have taken it out from bowl. Is there any other important physical difference?

__________________
=snp

We are pointing our dish to distant stars and galaxies. We are measuring their radiation level locally at this point. You are correct...

__________________
=snp

You are correct. If you put 100 trucks one upon another, height will increase 100 times mathematically, but practically the whole thing will collapse.

We are pointing our dish to distant stars and galaxies. We are measuring their radiation level locally at this point. Is it not…

__________________
=snp

well its nice to think that someone understands the point I'm getting at and admits it

so where do we go from here ?

are CMBs still evidence of the Big-Bang ?

I think not

What is the problem with other Galaxies?

__________________
=snp

nothing

we just don't have the capability , for now , to account for them when eliminating their CMBs fom BB CMBs because of the distance of these galaxies from us

Why are you referring to CMB in the plural?

so there is 1 CMB ?

The CMBR spectrum is very close to the spectrum of an object in thermal equilibrium, a blackbody. It is a better blackbody than any we can make in a laboratory, or any that we measure from a galaxy. Galaxies tend to have spectra that either emit or absorb preferentially at particular wavelengths. This would seem to count out galaxies as the source of the CMBR.

Yes. Why do you think that there is more than one?

why do you not think that space is filled with CMBs ?

hence the plural

CMBs are not a matter of absorption but what is emitted

is that not what BB counts on , to prove its theory ?

You mean millions of CMBs to be eliminated, Just subtract some quantities in the name of Galaxies. What about stars? They don’t produce CMB? Only few produce CMB and others don’t, perhaps…

__________________
=snp

Is there any way to differentiate between each other ?

__________________
=snp

Is there any way to differentiate between each other ?

__________________
=snp

An analogy is some kind of fog. We see - well- fog and stare inside it. After some training of the eyes we see the faint contours of our neighboring house.
That is somehow the relation of patterns in CMBR. Why would anybody think the fog is representing distant objects?

Well-said sir,
What shall we do now?

__________________
=snp

OK Guys, here's the real deal.

Theory predicts: If Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) is correct, then the volume of the universe should be filled with electromagnetic radiation that has a Planck Law spectral energy density, and will correspond to a very low temperature.

How do we determine whether or not the prediction of theory is consistent with our observations of the universe? If we point a telescope at the sky the telescope sees all electromagnetic radiation from all sources piled on top of each other. No photon or electromagnetic wave carries a sign post saying Hello, my name is CMB, so how do we tell them apart? Easy. We don't.

We look at everything that we know, which we can determine by a combination of observation and modeling (such as the emission from spinning charged dust particles). We subtract everything we know about from everything we see.

• If BBC is correct, then that which is left over will be thermal emission.
• If BBC is incorrect, then that which is left over will not be thermal emission.
• If that which is left over is not thermal emission, then either (a) BBC is incorrect and we need a new cosmology, or (b) BBC is correct but we have done a lousy job of removing the foregrounds and cannot see the thermal emission that is really there waiting to be discovered.

This has been done. This is what happened: That which is left over has been confirmed by observation to be thermal emission. That's not a guess, it has already been done, it's in the bag, it's history. Therefore observation and BBC are mutually consistent. That does not prove that BBC is right. But it does prove that BBC theory is consistent with observation, and that is the Holy Grail we desire from all theories always - consistency with observation.

No Way No How can CMB have anything to do with starlight in your wildest pseudoscientific purple-haze induced fantasies in this universe. Such a claim wildly violates the heck out of every law of physics you can appeal to. Stars are not thermal emitters, but the CMB is thermal. Stars are really hot, but the CMB is really cold. Sir Arthur Eddington knew this, and published the proof 80 years ago, so it's time to get with modern science and leave the century old thinking behind.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Very Good analogy sir,

It is some thing like fog. It is simply because the radiation depends on the different sources like stars, Galaxies and astronomical bodies vary from place to place. The radiation differs depending on foreground. That’s why we see countours…

__________________
=snp

I just want to check, but what do you think CMB stands for?

Which contours ate you talking about?

Well, there may be a language barrier here, but you wrote in your question:

is it not from any star, which is a negative question (to which the answer could be yes depending on how correct you want to be in answering negative questions.)

I assume you wanted to write

it is not from any star which is a explicit statement (to which the answer is no)

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

... Correct, light from Stars and Galaxies also follow Planck's Law!...


... Why dont you accept that such radiation is not from BBC?

... Subtract all stars and Galaxies, why only 15% of sky, I observe them in the other 85% of the sky also; dont you see...

• Quote:

  or (b) BBC is correct but we have done a lousy job of removing the foregrounds and cannot see the thermal emission that is really there waiting to be discovered.

... What is thermal emission, How to differentiate it from normal Electro-magnetic emission?

... It is High time to think of other cosmologies...



... How?

... You are correct, that is the Holy Grail, but BBC failed to explain observations, and It created a matematical singularity on to our head...

... Such a colorful dreamy name!!!

... Lets see what are those laws...

... What is thermal emission? Bigbang is not hot?

... Many theories failed...

__________________
=snp

The contours of Milkyway disk, Of earth, moon, Sun and planets, WMAP sources, Other portions of sky that were removed due to high brightness that were present in other directions than Milkyway disk , etc… Many can be seen 2003 WMAP observations, but removed in 2008 WMAP papers!

__________________
=snp

We point an antenna into the sky and get a kind of hum. Well- that's strange. Not the faintest idea, where that comes from.
So that will be investigated further. We switch receivers on and bring satellites to the orbit. That gives us a map of this hum and we see: nothing.
After enhancing the methods, we get very sophisticated means to sharpen this map and what do we see: well, not very much, but a kind of stripe and a yin-yang pattern. The ying-yang pattern could be related to our orbit around the sun and the red stripe to our own galaxy. There, but very, very dim.
The relation of the milky-way to the whole CMB is in the range of one in a million. So I personally would think, that CMBR has some relation to stars, but is fading after such a relation with distance (from us observers). A strong hint for some local effect is, that our own orbit is visible and the earth is by all means tiny on cosmic scale.
To call that radiation the afterglow of the big bang isn't even funny.

I am sorry, I misled you by my language...

__________________
=snp

You are correct sir,

Say in 1965, Penzias and Wilson pointed the dish towards the sky, they searched the reasons for hum, that time to their knowledge there may not be any stars or Galaxies. They thought, sky in that part is empty. But today we know there are Billions of stars and galaxies. And we will find them almost every where….

__________________
=snp

Absolutely not. No they do not. The light from stars and galaxies does not follow Planck's laws. They are in all cases highly non thermal.

You are using a double negative and I have no idea what you are really asking me. We don't blindly accept anything. BBC is a family of definite scientific theories. They make definite predictions. We don't "accept", we "predict" in the technical scientific sense. Non thermal emission is not predicted by the theory, so why would we "accept" that it comes from the theory anyway?

We do subtract the entire sky, why don't you already know that? The Milky Way emission is not significant over most of the sky, but the point source catalog covers the whole sky, and so do corrections for the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.

Thermal emission has a Planck Law spectral energy density (SED), non thermal emission does not. If you look at individual photons one at a time you can't tell the difference. If you look at the combined emission from a source you can tell the difference, by looking at the SED. Why don't you already know that?

Why?

See Jarosik, et al., 2007; Hinshaw, et al., 2007; Page, et al., 2007. See Spergel, et al., 2007 for the cosmological interpretations. For further reading on foreground emissions see Bennett, et al., 2003; Hinshaw, et al., 2003; Barnes, et al., 2003; Jarosik, et al., 2003. See Fixsen, et al., 1996 for a presentation of the FIRAS spectrum that shows how the temperature of the CMB is derived. Why don't you already know this?

What observations does BBC fail to explain? Why is that failure an indication that we need a radically new cosmology, rather than a modification of BBC?

Big bang was hot. However big bang is now very cold, not hot. Why don't you already know this?


See The Internal Constitution of the Stars by Sir Arthur Eddington, first published in 1926 and revised in 1930, still in print and easy to find. See chapter XIII, "Diffuse matter in Space". Eddington says of starlight, on page 380: "Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine, and although its density corresponds to 3.18 degrees, it is far richer in high-frequency constituents than equilibrium radiation of that temperature." Please explain why this is wrong.

One last point. You notice that in several places I have asked: Why don't you already know this? You are telling us that the analysis of the CMB and the interpretations of BBC are wrong. Yet the questions you ask and statements you make clearly show that you do not in fact know anything about the CMB or how it is analyzed or how it is interpreted. You don't even know what "thermal emission" means, you have to ask. If you don't even know the basic physics, how can you know that the basic physics is being used wrongly?

If you don't know how the CMB is detected and analyzed, then how do you know it is being done wrong?

if you don't know enough about BBC to know that, according to BBC, the bang was hot but is now cold, then how do you know that BBC must be wrong? If you don't know what BBC predicts, then how do you know that its predictions are wrong?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

... You are wrong, There may be minor variation from Black Body spectrum. Sun and Stars produce energies all through the black body spectrum. These spectrum variations differ from star to star and vary dynamically with time also. How do you define Black body spectrum, through corrected Planck's law?

... In 2003 WMAP papers, you removed entire pixels for 15% of sky for different reasons. Now only subtracted thro’ entire sky. Today also you Removed pixels of Sun, Earth, Moon, Planets etc., and rebuilt that portion of the sky from some other time….

What are these point sources, in your opinion? They are entirely a new class of astronomical bodies, aren’t they?
Oh! You are using new instrument to separate those individual photons? All these things you have deduced using radiometers in five microwave frequency bands representing the entire blackbody spectrum…


I will discuss with you separately, I am afraid we will go off the topic…


I know.

BBC cannot be modified. It will not take many things into account. It has singularities. Our universe is not uniformly densed….

Bigbang was hot. Stars and Galaxies were hot. They are all distant. Times are different. What we see is the radiation at our measuring point in that direction.


He is referring to scattered radiation of stars due to dust. After the scattering;the frequency power spectrum may change which is different from the incident radiation. But definitely he was not referring to Bigbang radiation.

I know that. What I was afraid is people talk and repeat technical words just like parrots. That why I was asking ‘ What do you mean by that?’

Thats what I am asking sir,

[/QUOTE]

I told you above about this.

__________________
=snp

CMBs

Constantly Misunderstanding Background microwave radiation , caused by Universe expansion

( I wish I could a smile on the end but I havn't been able to to this for several yrs now )

chesse please !!